Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Palatal morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: Association with infant cleft dimensions and timing of hard palate repair

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Short mandible - a possible risk factor for cleft palate with/without a cleft lip

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Delayed dental maturity in dentitions with agenesis of mandibular second premolars

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. How does occipitalization influence the dimensions of the cranium?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Skull thickness in patients with clefts

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. A Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 1. Planning and management

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 6. Dental arch relationships in 5 year-olds

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Susanna Botticelli
  • Annelise Küseler
  • Kirsten Mølsted
  • Maja Ovsenik
  • Sven Erik Nørholt
  • Michel Dalstra
  • Paolo M Cattaneo
  • Thomas Klit Pedersen
View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalOrthodontics & Craniofacial Research
Volume22
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)270-280
Number of pages11
ISSN1601-6335
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2019

    Research areas

  • Child, Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Humans, Infant, Lip, Palate, Palate, Hard/surgery, Pilot Projects

ID: 59409875