Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate before age 10 years
- PMID: 7918525
- DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_1994_031_0295_srtmpi_2.3.co_2
Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate before age 10 years
Abstract
Over the last 15 years, cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients with maxillary deficiency in the care of the Bergen CLP Team have received interceptive orthopedic treatment to correct anterior and posterior crossbites during the deciduous and mixed dentition periods. The present study comprises 72 subjects of various cleft types with anterior crossbite, treated to an acceptable positive overjet by maxillary protraction using a facial mask (Delaire). Lateral cephalograms were taken immediately before and after the active treatment periods. Individuals exhibiting a favorable (fair) skeletal response to the protraction were compared with those who revealed little, (poor) skeletal response. Two cephalometric variables were chosen for the evaluation of the sagittal skeletal treatment changes: (1) the sagittal maxillomandibular change (change of angle ss-n-sm [ANB]); and (2) the forward movement of the maxilla (change of distance NSP-maxp), where maxp (maxillary point) represents the anterior contour of maxilla and NSP is the perpendicular to the nasion-sella-line (NSL) through sella. A numerical change greater than or equal to the value 1.5 (degrees or mm, respectively) was classified as fair versus poor response revealing a change less than 1.5. Fair-response (favorable response) of sagittal maxillomandibular change was found in 63% of the cases (mean increase of angle ANB was 3.3 degrees), more often when protraction started early. The length of maxilla was increased, the skeletal maxilla was moved forward 1.8 mm, the upper dentition advanced 3.6 mm, the occlusal line was clockwise rotated, and the anterior face height was increased. Similarly, fair-response of forward movement of maxilla was found in 44% of the cases (mean increase of distance NSP-maxp was 2.4 mm), more often when protraction was started early and after long treatment duration. The maxillary prognathism increased 1.8 degrees, the angle ANB increased 3 degrees, the length of maxilla increased 1.5 mm, and the upper dentition was advanced 3.7 mm. The anterior face height increased with counterclockwise rotation of the nasal line, whereas the occlusal line was clockwise rotated. A paired fair-response of both skeletal maxillomandibular change and skeletal forward movement of maxilla was found in 35% of the cases. During protraction the mean increase of maxillary prognathism was 2.1 degrees, the maxilla moved forward 3.1 mm, the maxillary dentition advanced 4.3 mm, the maxillary length increased 1.9 mm, the ANB angle increased 3.7 degrees, and the lower anterior facial height increased 3.4 mm.
Similar articles
-
Soft-tissue profile changes during widening and protraction of the maxilla in patients with cleft lip and palate compared with normal growth and development.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993 Sep;30(5):454-68. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0454_stpcdw_2.3.co_2. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993. PMID: 8218309
-
Orthopedic protraction of the upper jaw in cleft lip and palate patients during the deciduous and mixed dentition periods in comparison with normal growth and development.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993 Mar;30(2):182-94. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0182_opotuj_2.3.co_2. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993. PMID: 8452841
-
Maxillary protraction: different effects on facial morphology in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993 Mar;30(2):208-21. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0208_mpdeof_2.3.co_2. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993. PMID: 8452843
-
Face mask therapy of preadolescents with unilateral cleft lip and palate.Angle Orthod. 1994;64(2):145-50. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0145:FMTOPW>2.0.CO;2. Angle Orthod. 1994. PMID: 8010523 Review.
-
Maxillary protraction for early orthopedic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion.Pediatr Dent. 1993 May-Jun;15(3):203-7. Pediatr Dent. 1993. PMID: 8378159 Review.
Cited by
-
The effects of face mask therapy in cleft lip and palate patients.Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jul;2(2):116-20. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.101332. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2012. PMID: 23483763 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients.Angle Orthod. 2012 Sep;82(5):935-41. doi: 10.2319/010112-1.1. Epub 2012 Mar 1. Angle Orthod. 2012. PMID: 22380632 Free PMC article.
-
Reverse Engineering Orthognathic Surgery and Orthodontics in Individuals with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Case Report.Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Jul 31;11(8):771. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11080771. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39199729 Free PMC article.
-
Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric appraisal.Eur J Orthod. 2019 Sep 21;41(5):537-543. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjz005. Eur J Orthod. 2019. PMID: 30865780 Free PMC article.
-
Norwegian Orthodontists' Experience and Challenges With Treatment of Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022 Jul;59(7):859-866. doi: 10.1177/10556656211028509. Epub 2021 Jul 20. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022. PMID: 34282635 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous