Kornbluth Michelle, Campbell Richard E, Daskalogiannakis John, Ross Elizabeth J, Glick Patricia H, Russell Kathleen A, Doucet Jean-Charles, Hathaway Ronald R, Long Ross E, Sitzman Thomas J
1 Department of Dentistry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
2 Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018 May;55(5):639-648. doi: 10.1177/1055665618757367. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
To compare dental arch relationship, craniofacial form, and nasolabial aesthetic outcomes among cleft centers using distinct methods of presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO).
Retrospective cohort study.
Four cleft centers in North America.
One hundred ninety-one children with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP).
Dental arch relationship was assessed using the GOSLON Yardstick. Craniofacial form was assessed by 12 cephalometric measurements. Nasolabial aesthetics were assessed using the Asher-McDade system. Assessments were performed between 6 and 12 years of age.
The center that used no PSIO achieved the most favorable dental arch relationship and maxillomandibular relationship, with a median GOSLON score of 2.3 ( P < .01) and an ANB angle of 5.1° ( P < .05). The proportion of children assigned a GOSLON score of 4 or 5, predictive of the need for orthognathic surgery in adolescence, was 16% at the center that used no PSIO and no secondary surgery, compared to 76% at the centers that used the Latham appliance and early secondary lip and nose surgery ( P < .01). The center that used no PSIO and no secondary surgery achieved significantly less favorable nasolabial aesthetic outcomes than the centers using Latham appliance or nasoalveolar molding (NAM) ( P < .01).
Effects of active PSIO are multifaceted and intertwined with use of revision surgery. In our study, centers using either the Latham appliance combined with early revision surgery or the NAM appliance without revision surgery achieved better nasolabial aesthetic outcomes but worse maxillary growth, compared to a center using no PSIO and secondary surgery.
比较采用不同术前婴儿正畸(PSIO)方法的腭裂治疗中心之间的牙弓关系、颅面形态和鼻唇美学效果。
回顾性队列研究。
北美四个腭裂治疗中心。
191例单侧完全性唇腭裂(CUCLP)修复患儿。
使用戈斯隆评分尺评估牙弓关系。通过12项头影测量评估颅面形态。使用阿舍 - 麦克戴德系统评估鼻唇美学。评估在6至12岁之间进行。
未采用PSIO的中心实现了最有利的牙弓关系和上下颌关系,戈斯隆评分中位数为2.3(P <.01),ANB角为5.1°(P <.05)。在未采用PSIO且未进行二次手术的中心,被赋予戈斯隆评分4或5(预测青春期正颌手术需求)的儿童比例为16%,而在采用莱瑟姆矫治器以及早期二次唇鼻手术的中心这一比例为76%(P <.01)。未采用PSIO且未进行二次手术的中心在鼻唇美学效果方面明显不如采用莱瑟姆矫治器或鼻牙槽塑形(NAM)的中心(P <.01)。
积极的PSIO的影响是多方面的,并且与修复手术的使用相互交织。在我们的研究中,与未采用PSIO和二次手术的中心相比,采用莱瑟姆矫治器联合早期修复手术或采用NAM矫治器且不进行修复手术的中心在鼻唇美学效果方面更好,但上颌生长情况更差。