Premium
Palatal morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: Association with infant cleft dimensions and timing of hard palate repair
Author(s) -
Botticelli Susanna,
Küseler Annelise,
Mølsted Kirsten,
Ovsenik Maja,
Nørholt Sven Erik,
Dalstra Michel,
Cattaneo Paolo M.,
Pedersen Thomas Klit
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1111/ocr.12318
Subject(s) - hard palate , medicine , dentistry , orthodontics , secondary palate , soft palate , perimeter , anatomy , surgery , mathematics , geometry
Objectives To assess the impact of cleft severity and timing of hard palate repair on palatal dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) children. Setting and sample population Single‐centre analysis within a multicenter RCT of primary surgery; 122 UCLP randomized to early hard palate closure (EHPC) at 12 months or delayed hard palate closure (DHPC) at 36 months; 28 frequency‐matched controls. Methods Linear measurements of palatal height, width and length were performed on 116 digital models of UCLP subjects (8.21 years, SD = 0.53) and 28 models of non‐cleft individuals (8.44 years SD = 0.72). Cleft dimensions at infancy (mean 1.8 months) were considered. In a pilot study, shell‐to‐shell distances between the 3D cleft palate objects and a reference mesh were calculated and differences between the groups assessed. Morphological differences were visualized using colour mapping. Results Compared to controls, UCLP subjects presented a higher palate at the level of the anterior scar ( P = 0.002), but generally a lower palate in the middle region ( P < 0.001). Comparing UCLP subgroups, the DHPC subjects showed a flatter palate posteriorly ( P = 0.048) and the EHPC group exhibited more transversal constriction ( P = 0.003 at M1 level). 3D analysis revealed a shallower palate in the DHPC group both in the middle ( P = 0.002) and the posterior part ( P = 0.008). Anterior cleft severity correlated negatively with palatal height ( P = 0.01). Conclusions Unilateral cleft lip and palate palates differ from controls in width and height. DHPC may represent an advantage for the transversal dimension, but a disadvantage for palatal height. Infant cleft dimensions partially explain differences in palatal height.