The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2018
Facial and Nasolabial Aesthetics of Complete UCLP Submitted to 2-Stage Palate Repair With Vomer Flap.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ozawa Terumi Okada, Reis Luciana Lais Savero, Kato Renata Mayumi, Rocha Diógenes Laercio, Sathler Renata, Garib Daniela Gamba
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the aesthetics of nasolabial appearance and facial profile of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) submitted to 2-stage palate repair with vomerine flap.
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Single center.
PATIENTS: Forty patients with UCLP, mean age of 7.81 years of both sexes, rehabilitated at a single center by 1 plastic surgeon.
INTERVENTIONS: Lip and anterior palate repair with nasal alar repositioning was performed at 3 to 6 months of age by Millard technique and vomer flap, respectively. Posterior palate was repaired at 18 months by Von Langenbeck technique.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Four cropped digital facial photographs of each patient were evaluated by 3 orthodontists to score the nasolabial aesthetics and profile. Frequencies of each score as well means and medians were calculated. Kappa test was used for evaluating inter- and intrarater reproducibility.
RESULTS: The nasal form and deviation was scored as good/very good in 70%, fair in 22.5%, and poor in 7.5% of the sample. The nasal-subnasal aesthetic was considered good/very good in 55%, fair in 30%, and poor in 15% of the sample. The lip vermilion border and the white part of surgical scar aesthetics were good/very good in 77.5% and 80%, fair in 17.5% for both categories, and poor in 5% and 2.5% of the cases, respectively. In all, 67.5% showed convex facial profile, 20% was straight, and 12.5% was concave profile.
CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage palatoplasty presented an adequate aesthetical results for the majority of patients with UCLP in the mixed dentition.
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Single center.
PATIENTS: Forty patients with UCLP, mean age of 7.81 years of both sexes, rehabilitated at a single center by 1 plastic surgeon.
INTERVENTIONS: Lip and anterior palate repair with nasal alar repositioning was performed at 3 to 6 months of age by Millard technique and vomer flap, respectively. Posterior palate was repaired at 18 months by Von Langenbeck technique.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Four cropped digital facial photographs of each patient were evaluated by 3 orthodontists to score the nasolabial aesthetics and profile. Frequencies of each score as well means and medians were calculated. Kappa test was used for evaluating inter- and intrarater reproducibility.
RESULTS: The nasal form and deviation was scored as good/very good in 70%, fair in 22.5%, and poor in 7.5% of the sample. The nasal-subnasal aesthetic was considered good/very good in 55%, fair in 30%, and poor in 15% of the sample. The lip vermilion border and the white part of surgical scar aesthetics were good/very good in 77.5% and 80%, fair in 17.5% for both categories, and poor in 5% and 2.5% of the cases, respectively. In all, 67.5% showed convex facial profile, 20% was straight, and 12.5% was concave profile.
CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage palatoplasty presented an adequate aesthetical results for the majority of patients with UCLP in the mixed dentition.