Ross E. Long

The influence of surgery and orthopedic treatment on maxillofacial growth and maxillary arch development in patients treated for orofacial clefts

Abstract This paper describes maxillofacial growth and dental arch development in relation to different orthodontic and surgical interventions utilized in the management of orofacial clefts. It addresses presurgical orthopedic treatment in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, primary periosteoplasty, primary bone grafting, lip surgery, palatal surgery, pharyngeal flap surgery, maxillary protraction, and early secondary bone grafting. Difficulties associated with synthesizing previously published data and suggestions for approaching still unanswered questions in the next millennium are presented.

The Americleft Study: An Inter‐Center Study of Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Part 4. Nasolabial Aesthetics

Objective To compare the nasolabial aesthetics for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate between the ages of 5 and 12 years. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting Four cleft centers in North America. Subjects A total of 124 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were treated at the four centers. Methods After ethics approval was obtained, 124 preorthodontic frontal and profile patient images were scanned, cropped to show the nose and upper lip, and coded. Using the coded images, four nasolabial features that reflect aesthetics (i.e., nasal symmetry, nasal form, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile) were rated by five examiners using the rating system reported by Asher-McDade et al. (1991). Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were determined using weighted kappa statistics. Mean ratings, by center, were compared using analysis of variance. Results Intrarater reliability scores were good to very good and interrater reliability scores were moderate to good. Total nasolabial scores were Center B = 2.98, Center C = 3.02, Center D = 2.80, and Center E = 2.87. No statistically significant differences among centers were detected for both total aesthetic scores and for any of the individual aesthetic components. Conclusion There were no significant differences in nasolabial aesthetics among the centers evaluated. Overall good to fair nasolabial aesthetic results were achieved using the different treatment protocols in the four North American centers.

The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 2. Dental arch relationships.

Objective To compare maxillomandibular relationships for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate using the Goslon Yardstick for dental models. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Five cleft palate centers in North America. Subjects A total of 169 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were consecutively treated at the five centers. Methods Ethics approval was obtained. A total of 169 dental models of patients between 6 and 12 years old with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were assessed using the Goslon Yardstick. Weighted kappa statistics were used to assess intrarater and interrater reliabilities; whereas, analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer analysis was used to compare the Goslon scores. Significance levels were set at p < .05. Results Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were very good for model ratings. One center that incorporated primary alveolar bone grafting showed especially poor Goslon scores that were significantly poorer than the remaining centers. The surgery protocols used by the other four centers did not include primary alveolar bone grafting but involved a number of different lip and palate closure techniques. Using the Goslon Yardstick assumptions, the center with the best scores would be expected to require end-stage maxillary advancement orthognathic surgery in 20% of its patients; whereas, the center with the worst scores would be likely to require this surgery in 66% of its patients. Conclusions The Goslon Yardstick proved capable of discriminating among the centers’ dental arch relationships. Possible explanations for the differences are discussed.

The americleft study: An inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 3. Analysis of craniofacial form

Objective To compare craniofacial morphology for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Four North American cleft palate centers. Subjects A total of 148 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were consecutively treated at the four centers. Methods The 148 preorthodontic lateral cephalometric radiographs were scanned, scaled, digitized, and coded to blind the examiners to radiograph origin. On each radiograph, 18 (angular and ratio) cephalometric measurements were performed. Measurement means, by center, were compared using analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer analysis. Results Significant differences were found for sagittal maxillary prominence among the four centers. The most significant difference was seen between Center B (lowest SNA) and Center C (highest SNA). Similar differences were seen at the soft tissue level, with Center C showing a significantly larger ANB angle compared with Centers B and D. Center C was also shown to have statistically greater mean soft tissue convexity than Centers B, D, and E. The mean nasolabial angle in Center B was significantly more acute than in Centers C, D, and E. No statistically significant differences were seen for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations. Conclusion Significant differences were seen among the centers for hard and soft tissue maxillary prominence, but not for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations. A modest but statistically significant (p < .001) negative correlation was found between Goslon scores and ANB angle (r = –.607).

Orthodontic Treatment of the patient with complete clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate Lessons of the past 60 years.

Abstract This review paper summarizes 60 years of progress in the orthodontic care of patients with complete clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate. The progress and evolution of orthodontic treatment for patients with complete clefts has taken a slow and sometimes circuitous route to present-day standards. Nonetheless, in spite of this history of slow and inefficient scientific and clinical progress, review of the literature of the past 60 years does, in fact, reveal that progress has been made. This progress has not only been in the area of improved surgical and orthodontic techniques but also relative to the scientific weaknesses of past decades. The investigations of more recent years seem to be moving in a direction of better documentation, stricter methodologies, longer-term follow-up, larger sample sizes, etc. However, there remains much work to be done. Only by adopting a more critical approach will protocols be defined that can achieve optimal outcomes, while minimizing the burden of the orthodo...

The Americleft Study: An Inter‐Center Study of Treatment Outcomes for Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Part 5. General Discussion and Conclusions

Objective To summarize the Americleft study regarding treatment outcomes for patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). Setting Five cleft palate centers in North America. Subjects One hundred sixty-nine subjects, between the ages of 6 years and 12 years, with repaired CUCLP who were consecutively treated at the five centers. Methods Study consisted of model comparisons assessing maxillomandibular relationship using the GOSLON Yardstick (169 patients from all 5 centers), soft and hard tissue craniofacial morphologic comparisons using lateral cephalometric analyses (148 patients from four of the centers), and nasolabial esthetics assessments (125 patients from four of the centers). Results Significant differences were found between the center with the best GOSLON scores and the remaining centers. These differences also corresponded to those found in the craniofacial morphologic cephalometric assessment. Sagittal maxillary prominence was found to be significantly better for the center with the best GOSLON scores, while no significant differences were seen among the centers for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations. No differences were seen for nasolabial esthetics between the centers. Conclusions Challenges experienced while undertaking the inter-center retrospective study are reviewed. Aspects of treatment that could potentially make the outcome of treatment less optimal included primary alveolar bone grafting and extensive treatment protocols. Differences in the outcomes identified between the centers were restricted to the maxilla, and no differences were identified for mandibular prominence, vertical dimensions, or dental inclinations.

A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

OBJECTIVE Compare 5-year-old dental arch relationships of patients from three centers with differing primary protocols. DESIGN Retrospective study of treatment outcomes using blinded evaluation of dental study casts. SETTING Three major cleft-craniofacial centers; one (center A) is a free-standing institution, and two (centers B and C) are university hospitals. PATIENTS 118 (A = 41; B = 33; C = 44) consecutively treated 5-year-old patients with complete, nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. INTERVENTIONS Centers A and C completed primary repair without presurgical orthopedics by 18 months (center A in three surgeries and center C in two surgeries). Center B used passive presurgical orthopedics with lip/soft palate repair at 6 months and gingivo-alveoloplasty/hard palate repair at 18 to 36 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Averaged ratings of dental casts using the 5-year yardstick were computed for each patient. The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare means; a chi-square test was used to compare distributions. RESULTS Intra- and interexaminer reliability tests showed excellent reliability (>.90). Mean scores were not significantly different. Distribution of scores differed significantly. Center A had the highest percentage of good scores and the lowest percentage of poor scores (72% versus 6.5%), followed by center B (63% versus 6.6%) and center C (59% versus 16.3%). CONCLUSIONS Centers A and B had comparable scores and completely different protocols in surgical technique, timing, sequencing, and nonuse/use of appliances. Center Cs results were slightly lower than those of 1 and 3, but the center had the protocol with the least burden of treatment (only two surgeries, without use of appliances).

The Americleft Project: A Proposed Expanded Nasolabial Appearance Yardstick for 5- to 7-Year-Old Patients With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate (CUCLP)

Objective To develop a yardstick of reference photographs for nasolabial appearance assessments of 5- to 7-year-old patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP). Design Blind retrospective analysis of clinical records and comparison to historical controls. Patients Subjects were two groups of 6- to 12-year-olds (n = 124 and n = 135) and one group of 5- to 7-year-olds (n = 149) with nonsyndromic CUCLP from three previous Americleft studies, including cohorts from seven different cleft/craniofacial centers. Interventions All patients received the infant management protocols of their respective centers. Eleven trained and calibrated judges (five participated in all three studies) did blind ratings of nasolabial appearance using the Asher-McDade method. Main Outcome Measures Patients receiving the most consistent ratings between judges, selected first from the groups of 6- to 12-year-olds, were used to create a pilot yardstick for eventual use in the third study of 5- to 7-year-olds. For each of the Asher-McDade categories, 8 of the 5- to 7-year-old patients receiving the most consistent scores between raters were ranked by 10 judges for a final elimination to leave three per category. Results Using this method of successive changes in rating methods, a new reference yardstick for nasolabial appearance rating was established and linked to the original Asher-McDade method as well as the single examples in a previously published yardstick for patients with CUCLP. Pilot testing using the yardstick improved reliabilities. Conclusions Use of an expanded nasolabial yardstick of reference photographs representative of the range of possibilities of each of the five Asher-McDade categories is now available to see if reliability of these ratings can be improved.

Quantitative 3D Maxillary Arch Evaluation of Two Different Infant Managements for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

OBJECTIVE A two-institution retrospective study was undertaken to determine whether two different prepalatoplasty protocols quantitatively affect maxillary arch morphology in infants with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). DESIGN Serial maxillary dental casts, obtained at regular intervals through the first 18 months of life from preintervention until palatoplasty were evaluated quantitatively using computer-assisted three-dimensional digitization and analysis for three populations: institution 1 (protocol 1), institution 2 (protocol 2), and unaffected individuals (neither cleft nor treatment). Sequential UCLP patients from institution 1 were matched for age and initial alveolar cleft width, sex and cleft side having been demonstrated to be nonsignificant, with UCLP patients from institution 2 and to unaffected individuals for age for the analysis. SETTING Both treatment institutions are well-established regional interdisciplinary cleft centers. Institution 1 is located in a tertiary, academic childrens hospital in a metropolis within a primarily agrarian region of the Midwest; institution 2 is a freestanding private clinic located in a small city within a primarily agrarian region of an eastern state; the unaffected population is a historic archive acquired in the 1930s. Data acquisition (model digitization) and computer processing were performed at institution 1. PATIENTS Eighty-five casts of 28 infants from institution 1, 106 casts of 31 infants from institution 2, and 68 casts of 29 unaffected infants were analyzed. All infants had alginate impressions taken prior to intervention and at several additional 6-month intervals after that, consistent with each institutions treatment protocol. INTERVENTIONS At institution 1, patients with UCLP underwent lip adhesion and placement of a passive alveolar molding plate at 7 weeks of age, definitive cheiloplasty at 7 months of age, and one-stage palatoplasty at 14 months of age. At institution 2, patients with UCLP underwent definitive cheiloplasty at 3 months of age, had no maxillary orthopedics, and had vomer flap hard palate repair at 12 months of age and soft palate repair at 18 months of age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The outcome measures included directly digitized (cleft segment and hemialveolar ridge lengths) and derived (alveolar base width, alveolar cleft gap, maxillary frenum-alveolar base perpendicular angle, and rates of change over time of digitized cleft segment and hemialveolar ridge lengths) features. The data were assessed by comparing simple linear regression lines and an unpaired, two-tailed t test. RESULTS Prior to initiating therapy, there were no statistically significant differences between the two populations with clefts. However, both populations with clefts differed significantly from unaffected individuals (p < .001), with increased maxillary base widths and larger perpendicular/frenum angles. At the time of palatoplasty, the two populations with clefts had statistically significant differences between them in the maxillary base width (p < .01) and the cleft gap distance (p < .05). The base width of institution 1 did not differ significantly from that of widths of unaffected children, and that of institution 2 was significantly less, although the latter had already received first-stage palate repair. Alveolar segment growth rates were similar for the greater and lesser segments, respectively, and the left side hemialveolus of both groups. The growth rate for the noncleft side hemialveolus of institution 2 exceeded (p < .05) that of both institution 1 and unaffected patients. CONCLUSION Two different regimens for the initial management of UCLP can significantly affect maxillary alveolar arch growth with respect to the treatment used and in comparison with unaffected controls.

A Multicenter Study Using the SWAG Scale to Compare Secondary Alveolar Bone Graft Outcomes for Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective To assess secondary alveolar bone graft (ABG) outcomes using the standardized way to assess grafts, or SWAG scale, for patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Four cleft centers with different protocols. Methods One hundred sixty maxillary occlusal radiographs taken 3 to 18 months after secondary ABG for sequentially treated patients with CLP were assessed using the SWAG scale. Radiographs were scanned, standardized, blinded, and rated by six orthodontists using the SWAG scale. Randomized radiographs were rated twice, 24 hours apart, by the same raters. Main Outcomes Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were assessed. Means and SDs were calculated for ABG ratings using analysis of variance and Tukey tests (P < .05). Result The mean ABG age was 9.1 years (range = 7 to 10.1 years) and the mean follow-up age was 12.4 years (range = 8.2 to 20.4 years). Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were good (intrarater = 0.788, interrater = 0.705), and higher than published methods. Mean ABG ratings for the cleft centers were 4.53, 2.9, 3.63, and 5.0 and differed significantly. The two centers with the highest ABG ratings showed higher ratings for all thirds decreasing from apical to coronal. The two centers with lower ABG ratings showed poorer ABG ratings for all thirds, and the middle third received the highest ratings. Conclusions The SWAG scale overcomes the challenges of age and bone location. The SWAG method was validated for showing intercenter differences for overall bone fill as well as in vertical thirds. Surgical technique, timing, and expertise/volume were identified as possible factors related to outcome.