Surgical effects of rehabilitation protocols on dental arch occlusion of children with cleft lip and palate

Abstract

Aim

to evaluate the surgical effects of two rehabilitation protocols on dental arch occlusion of 5-year-old children with or without cleft lip and palate.

Methods

this is a retrospective longitudinal study the sample comprised 45 digitized dental casts divided into followed groups: Group 1 (G1) – children who underwent to cheiloplasty (Millard technique) at 3 months and to one-stage palatoplasty (von Langenbeck technique) at 12 months; Group 2 (G2) – children who underwent to cheiloplasty (Millard technique) and two-stage palatoplasty (Hans Pichler technique for hard palate closure) at 3 months and at 12 months to soft palate closure (Sommerlad technique); and Group 3 (G3) – children without craniofacial anomalies. Linear measurements, area, and occlusion were evaluated by stereophotogrammetry software. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify normality. ANOVA followed by posthoc Tukey test and Kruskal-Wallis followed by posthoc Dunn tests were used to compared groups.

Results

For the measures intercanine distance (C-C’), anterior length of dental arch (I-CC’), and total length of the dental arch (I–MM’), there were statistical differences between G1x G3 and G2xG3, the mean was smaller for G1 and G2. No statistically significant differences occurred in the intermolar distance and in the dental arch area among groups. The occlusion analysis revealed significant difference in the comparison of the three groups (p=0.0004).

Conclusion

The surgical effects of two rehabilitation protocols affected the occlusion and the development of the anterior region of the maxilla of children with oral clefts when compared to children without oral clefts.

Cleft lip; Cleft palate; Dental arch; Imaging, three-dimensional; Dental occlusion

Introduction

The individual with cleft lip and palate undergoes a complex rehabilitative treatment through primary plastic surgeries, namely cheiloplasty and palatoplasty¹. These surgical procedures aim to rehabilitate and return the proper speech, hearing, and masticatory functions, directly influencing the self-esteem and social-affective integration of individuals with oral clefts². Different rehabilitation protocols have been used over the years to repair the lip and palate³.

To understanding the outcomes of plastic surgery and searching for suitable technical approach to decrease the iatrogenic effects of the rehabilitative procedures are essential to the rehabilitation of individuals with oral clefts, and they provide more favorable results that would consequently improve the quality of life⁴. The main aspects of the clef lip and palate repair is to understand the outcomes of different rehabilitative procedures. The rehabilitation starts with the closure of the lip. One of the most techniques used is Millard’s, which consists in incisions that allow the rotation of the flap for lip closure⁵. Von Langenbeck’s technique, a procedure for close palate, requires relaxing incisions to promote union of the muscles at the level of the septum⁶,⁷. Another technique for hard palate repair that can be used is Hans Pichler, which consist in the closure using a vomer flap⁸. Sommerlad’s technique, is a procedure to enhance velopharyngeal competence, the performance is to reposition and reinserted of the elevated muscle of the soft palate, in posterior edge of hard palate, in order to reestablish the muscle complex, contributed to the function of the soft palate⁹.

The differences in protocols can improve maxillary growth in cleft patients, and its importance is related to an achievement of the best rehabilitative protocol, since there is no gold standard protocol for cleft patient. The protocols are performed by the experience of the surgeon or for the convenience of the type, extension of the cleft. This justifies the evaluation and comparison of the dental arch development and the impact of the different surgical protocols in 5-year-old children. This study null hypothesis is that the dental arch morphology of children undergoing different rehabilitation surgical protocols is not statistically different from that of children without oral clefts, thus, the dental arch with patients with cleft remain without any restriction after primary surgeries, being as the same pattern with match-control-peers. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of two rehabilitation protocols on dental arch occlusion of 5-year-old children with or without cleft lip and palate.

Materials and Methods

The approved protocol by the Institutional Review Board is CAAE: 40034620. 6.0000.5441. This is a retrospective longitudinal study, in the period of 2010 to 2019. The study the sample comprised 45 digitized dental casts divided into the three different groups: Group 1 (G1) – children submitted to cheiloplasty (Millard technique) at 3 months and one-stage palatoplasty (von Langenbeck technique) at 12 months; Group 2 (G2) – children submitted to cheiloplasty (Millard technique) and two-stage palatoplasty (Hans Pichler technique for hard palate closure) at 3 months and 12 months to soft palate closure (Sommerlad technique); and Group 3 (G3) – children without craniofacial anomalies (control group).

Sample size estimative was accomplished according to the study of Maulina et al.¹⁰ (2007). We considered a standard deviation of 2.73 millimeter (mm) in the intercanine distance of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate, the level of significance used was 5%, where p≤0.05 was considered significant, power test of 80%, and the clinically minimum difference to be detected of 2.95 mm. The minimum sample size for each group was 14 children.

Inclusion criteria (G1 and G2) comprised maxillary dental casts of children from 5 years old, with unilateral cleft lip and palate, and without other craniofacial anomalies, with complete primary dentition, operated by the same plastic surgeon during their first year of life, at the rehabilitative center. The exclusion criteria (G1 and G2) were syndrome or other associated malformations, uncooperative children, and absence of the maxillary primary canines and/or second molars. Inclusion criteria (G3) comprised maxillary dental casts of children from 5 years old, without cleft lip and palate and with complete primary dentition, at a Dental School University. The exclusion criteria (G3) were absence of the maxillary primary canines and/or second molars.

The analyzed images was obtained from digitized dental casts by a three dimensional (3D)D scanner (Scanner R700^TM Scanner; 3Shape AS, Copenhagen, Denmark), and the digitized images were analyzed by two examiners in the stereophotogrammetry software (Mirror imaging software, Canfield Scientific, Inc., Fairfield, NJ, USA)¹¹.

The linear measurements were evaluated: intercanine distance (C–C’) – transversal line between the cusps of the maxillary left and right primary canine; intermolar distance (M–M’) – transversal line between the distal points of the palatal surface of the primary second molars; anterior dental arch length (I–CC’) – straight line passing from the interincisive point (I) perpendicularly to the C–C’ distance; and total dental arch length (I–MM’) – straight line from the point (I) perpendicularly to the distance M–M’¹⁴. The linear measurements were quantified in mm, Figure 1. The palate area was marked by points passing through the palatal surfaces of the teeth. The posterior limit of the dental arch was the distance M–M’¹⁰, Figure 2. The area was quantified in square millimeters (mm²).

Figure 1
Linear measurements.

Figure 2
Palate area.

The three-dimensional images of the models in occlusion were evaluated by the index of Atack et al.¹⁵ (1997). This index defines the systematization criteria for quantifying the occlusion morphology in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate, ranging from 1 to 5. The greater the index, the greater is the severity of the occlusion considering the interarch relationship, the maxillary arch shape, and the tipping of the maxillary incisors (Table 1).

Table 1
Classification of the index of Atack.

Index	Description	Prognosis
1	Positive overjet. Normal or palatal tipping of the maxillary incisors. Lack of open or crossbite.	Excellent
2	Positive overjet. Normal or labial tipping of the maxillary incisors. Tendency towards crossbite and unilateral crossbite. Tendency towards open bite at the cleft side.	Good
3	Anterior edge-to-edge bite. Labial tipping of the maxillary incisors or overjet with palatal tipping of the incisors. Tendency towards open bite at the cleft side.	Regular
4	Negative overjet. Normal or labial tipping of the maxillary incisors. Tendency towards open bite at the cleft side. Tendency towards posterior unilateral or bilateral crossbite.	Poor
5	Negative overjet. Labial tipping of the maxillary incisors. Bilateral crossbite.	Very poor

All the statistical analyses were performed by GraphPad Prism software (Prism 5 for Windows - Version 5.0 – GraphPad software., Inc. San Diego, USA), with the level of significance used was 5%, where p≤0.05 was considered significant. The normality of the samples were analyzed by Shapiro-Wilk test. To check the method reliability, 1/3 of the sample was evaluated twice with a 15-day interval¹²,¹³. Wilcoxon test verified the intraexaminer analysis, while Mann-Whitney test verified the interexaminer analysis. Dahlberg’s formula quantified the causal error. ANOVA and posthoc Tukey test, Kruskal-Wallis and posthoc Dunn tests were used to compared all three groups.

Results

The sample was comprised by 16 children in G1, 14 children in G2, and 15 children in G3, totalizing 45 evaluated dental casts. The study participants mean age was 6.08 (± 0.65) years (Table 2). Both the linear measurements and the area revealed no statistically significance in intraexaminer (Wilcoxon test, p= 0.114 and Dahlberg’s formula = 0.829) and interexaminer analyses (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.579). The occlusion analysis revealed no statistically significance differences in intraexaminer (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.423) and interexaminer analyses (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.983).

Table 2
Statistical analysis of sample.

Parameters	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	P-value (test)
Male / Female (n)	9 / 7	11 / 3	10 / 5	0.433 (Chi-square)
Age (Years)	6.93	5.92	5.39	0.367 (Kruskal-Wallis)

For the measures intercanine distance (C-C’), anterior length of dental arch (I-CC’), and total length of the dental arch (I–MM’), there were statistical differences between G1x G3 and G2xG3, the mean was smaller for G1 and G2. There was no significant differences presented in the intermolar distance (M–M’) and in the dental arch area among groups (Table 3).

Table 3
Intergroup analysis of the anthropometry of the dental arches (ANOVA post-hoc Tukey test).

Analyses	Unit	Group 1 Mean	SD	Group 2 Mean	SD	Group 3 Mean	SD	P
C–C’	mm	25.29 A	3.90	25.04 A	3.01	29.90 B	1.56	<0.0001*
I–CC’	mm	5.19 A	2.51	5.78 A	1.27	6.87 B	0.86	0.034*
M–M’	mm	35.31 A	3.99	35.06 A	2.39	36.29 A	1.59	0.425
I–MM’	mm	24.04 A	3.84	23.96 A	1.36	26.95 B	1.29	0.002*
Area	mm2	788.23 A	144.65	826.27 A	77.64	845.28 A	98.56	0.361

• * Statistically significant difference. SD: Standard deviation.
• Different capital letters in line means statistically significant difference.

Table 4 shows the occlusion analysis of G1, G2, and G3 according to the index of Atack. The intergroup comparison showed no statistically significant differences for G1 vs. G2, but statistically significant differences for G3 vs. G1 and G3 vs. G2.

Table 4
Classification of the index of Atack by group. Intergroup analysis of the index of Atack (Kruskal-Wallis test post-hoc Dunn test).

Index	Group 1 n (%)	Group 2 n (%)	Group 3 n (%)	P
1	1 (6.25)	0 (0)	7 (46.67)
2	6 (37.50)	4 (28.75)	6 (40)
3	0 (0)	5 (35.71)	2 (13.33)
4	6 (37.50)	4 (28.57)	0 (0)
5	3 (18.75)	1 (7.14)	0 (0)
Total	16 (100) A	14 (100) A	15 (100) B	0.0004*

• * Statistically significant difference.
• Different capital letters in line means statistically significant difference.

Discussion

This present study justifies in the attempted to understand better the differences between two different rehabilitative protocol, highlighting all the children were operated by one surgeon. In this way, the outcomes can be more favorable for the comprehension of what is important in the rehabilitative process.

This present study exhibited a greater measurement of the intercanine distance, anterior dental arch length, and total dental arch length for children without clefts. The rationale behind this finding would be the restriction initiated by primary surgeries in the anterior (canine area) and anterior-posterior transversal growth. There were no significant differences in the intermolar distance and area. Thus, it can be affirmed that the primary surgeries did not change the posterior transversal growth and the dental arch area. By corroborating with the maxillary restriction caused by the primary surgeries, Bruggink et al.¹⁶(2019), evaluated longitudinally individuals without oral clefts and followed the maxillary growth through the first year of life and remarkably found that the rate growth between the canines increased between 3 and 6 months of life. Previous study analyzed the maxillary dimensions at the first six months of life and estimated that the relative transversal growth of the anterior portion of the maxilla is around three times quicker than that of the posterior portion (81.9% vs. 26.2%)¹⁷. This points out to an anterior widening of the maxilla during that period and highlights the impact of cheiloplasty performed at the first months of life. Moreover, the treatment prognosis is categorized by the cleft amplitude severity, highlighting the width size. The bigger the cleft size, the greater is the probability of the healing tissue negatively impact on the maxillary growth¹⁸. The study of Huang et al.¹⁹(2002), evaluated the maxilla of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate and found an increasing in the dental arch linear measurements after a period of 12 months, except for the anterior region that displaced towards palatine after the cheiloplasty.

The method to obtain these measurements is very important. According to Kongprasert et al.²⁰(2019), three-dimensional evaluation has better accuracy and validity than two-dimensional evaluation, and it performances an important role in the follow-up of the change in dental arch dimensions towards all directions. Digitized models have the advantages of construction and analysis, absence of damage, that is, preservation of the dental casts. Thus, digitized dental cast has replaced dental casts as gold-standard²⁰. Previous studies reported the validity of the 3D stereophotogrammetry, including the clinical environment²¹.

The occlusal analysis by the Index of Atack is performed at 5 years-old because this is the age children are at complete deciduous denture. This index is measured in a scale ranging from 1 to 5, seeing that the greater the index, the worst is the facial profile, oscillating from regular occlusion to anterior and/or posterior crossbite¹⁵. The study of dental casts plays a relevant therapeutic role in the treatment of individuals with oral clefts because it points out the dimensional alterations and enables the use of indexes regarding treatment²².

This present study showed no statistically differences between the groups with clefts. This may suggest the interference of the different primary surgeries techniques on the occlusion development. The impact of the primary surgeries is still difficult to measure, which one is more suitable for the growth²³. Indeed, the literature lacks comparative studies on the occlusal analysis in children with and without cleft lip and palate. Thus, the comparison with children without clefts revealed that different surgical techniques directly influenced on the occlusal outcome. This result may contribute with the elaboration of a satisfactory rehabilitation protocol.

The potential strength of this study is the sample, because all the patient present in this study was operated by the same surgeon, so the sample have no operator bias, however this limits the sample number. A limitation issue that can be pointed is the size of the cleft before primary surgeries, this can be an important challenge for the surgeon, because wider is the cleft, more soft tissue is needed and more in the potential of scar and retraction. Therefore, further studies can be delineated in relation of cleft width.

In conclusion, the surgical effects of two rehabilitation protocols affected the occlusion and the development of the anterior region of the maxilla of children with oral clefts when compared to children without oral clefts.

Acknowledgments

São Paulo Research Foundation, Grant/Award Number: 2017/02706-9.

References

• ¹
  Shi B, Losee JE. The impact of cleft lip and palate repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci. 2015 Mar;7(1):14-7. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2014.59.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2014.59
• ²
  Pereira RMR, Siqueira N, Costa E, Vale D do, Alonso N. Unilateral cleft lip and palate surgical protocols and facial growth outcomes. J Craniofac Surg. 2018 Sep;29(6):1562-8. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004810.
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004810
• ³
  Arosarena OA. Cleft lip and palate. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2007 Feb;40(1):27-60, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2006.10.011.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2006.10.011
• ⁴
  Sakoda KL, Jorge PK, Carrara CFC, Machado MAAM, Valarelli FP, Pinzan A, et al. 3D analysis of effects of primary surgeries in cleft lip/palate children during the first two years of life. Braz Oral Res. 2017 Jun;31:e46. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0046.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0046
• ⁵
  Demke JC, Tatum SA. Analysis and evolution of rotation principles in unilateral cleft lip repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Mar;64(3):313-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.004.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.004
• ⁶
  Von Langenbeck B. Operation der anageborene totalen Spaltung des harten Gauments nach einer Methode. Dtsch Arch Klin Med. 1861;13:231.
• ⁷
  Silva Filho OG, Freitas JAS. Caracterização morfológica e origem embriológica. Fissuras labiopalatais: uma abordagem interdisciplinar. São Paulo: Santos; 2007.
• ⁸
  Bosi V, Brandão G, Yamashita R. Speech resonance and surgical complications after primary palatoplasty with intravelar veloplasty in patients with cleft lip and palate. Rev Bras Cir Plast. 2016;31(1):43-52. doi: 10.5935/2177-1235.2016RBCP0007.
  » https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2016RBCP0007
• ⁹
  Sommerlad BC, Mehendale FV, Birch MJ, Sell D, Hattee C, Harland K. Palate re-repair revisited. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002 May;39(3):295-307. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0295_prrr_2.0.co_2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0295_prrr_2.0.co_2
• ¹⁰
  Maulina I, Priede D, Linkeviciene L, Akota I. The influence of early orthodontic treatment on the growth of craniofacial complex in deciduous occlusion of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Stomatologija. 2007;9(3):91-6.
• ¹¹
  Carrara CFC, Ambrosio ECP, Mello BZF, Jorge PK, Soares S, Machado MA, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of surgical techniques in neonates with orofacial cleft. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul-Dec;6(2):246-50. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.200350.
  » https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0746.200350
• ¹²
  Ambrosio ECP, Sforza C, De Menezes M, Gibelli D, Codari M, Carrara CFC, et al. Longitudinal morphometric analysis of dental arch of children with cleft lip and palate: 3D stereophotogrammetry study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018 Dec;126(6):463-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.08.012..
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2018.08.012
• ¹³
  Ambrosio ECP, Sforza C, De Menezes M, Carrara CFC, Machado MAAM, Oliveira TM. Post-surgical effects on the maxillary segments of children with oral clefts: New three-dimensional anthropometric analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018 Sep;46(9):1511-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.06.017.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.06.017
• ¹⁴
  Rando GM, Jorge PK, Vitor LLR, Carrara CFC, Soares S, Silva TC, et al. Oral health-related quality of life of children with oral clefts and their families. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018 Feb;26:e20170106. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0106.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0106
• ¹⁵
  Atack N, Hathorn I, Mars M, Sandy J. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997 Apr;19(2):165-70. doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.2.165.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.2.165
• ¹⁶
  Bruggink R, Baan F, Kramer G, Maal TJJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Bergé SJ, et al. Three dimensional maxillary growth modeling in newborns. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Oct;23(10):3705-12. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2791-5.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2791-5
• ¹⁷
  Zen I, Soares M, Pinto LMCP, Ferelle A, Pessan JP, Dezan-Garbelini CC. Maxillary arch dimensions in the first 6 months of life and their relationship with pacifier use. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020 Jun;21(3):313-9. doi: 10.1007/s40368-019-00487-9.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00487-9
• ¹⁸
  Reiser E, Skoog V, Andlin-Sobocki A. Early dimensional changes in maxillary cleft size and arch dimensions of children with cleft lip and palate and cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013 Jul;50(4):481-90. doi: 10.1597/11-003.
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/11-003
• ¹⁹
  Huang C-S, Wang W-I, Liou EJ-W, Chen Y-R, Chen PK-T, Noordhoff MS. Effects of cheiloplasty on maxillary dental arch development in infants with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002 Sep;39(5):513-6. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0513_eocomd_2.0.co_2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0513_eocomd_2.0.co_2
• ²⁰
  Kongprasert T, Winaikosol K, Pisek A, Manosudprasit A, Manosudprasit A, Wangsrimongkol B, et al. Evaluation of the effects of cheiloplasty on maxillary arch in UCLP infants using three-dimensional digital models. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019 Sep;56(8):1013-9. doi: 10.1177/1055665619835090.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619835090
• ²¹
  Othman SA, Saffai L, Wan Hassan WN. Validity and reproducibility of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for the maxillofacial anthropometric measurement on cleft patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Aug;24(8):2853-66. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03150-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03150-1
• ²²
  Ozawa TO, Shaw WC, Katsaros C, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Hagberg C, Rønning E, et al. A new yardstick for rating dental arch relationship in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011 Mar;48(2):167-72. doi: 10.1597/09-122.
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/09-122
• ²³
  Shaye D, Liu CC, Tollefson TT. Cleft Lip and Palate: An Evidence-Based Review. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2015 Aug;23(3):357-72. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2015.04.008.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2015.04.008

• Data availability
  Datasets related to this article will be available upon request to the corresponding author.

Edited by

Editor: Altair A. Del Bel Cury

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 Sept 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  14 June 2021
• Accepted
  30 Jan 2022