Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2014
Esthetic evaluation of the facial profile in rehabilitated adults with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ferrari Júnior Flávio Mauro, Ayub Priscila Vaz, Capelozza Filho Leopoldino, Pereira Lauris José Roberto, Garib Daniela Gamba
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the facial esthetics of patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate, and to compare the judgment of raters related and unrelated to cleft care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample comprised 23 adult patients (7 women and 16 men) with a mean age of 26.1 years, rehabilitated at a single center. Standardized photographs of the right and left facial profile were taken of each patient and subjectively evaluated by 25 examiners: 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons with expertise in oral cleft rehabilitation, 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons without expertise in oral cleft rehabilitation, and 5 laypersons. The facial profiles were classified into 3 categories: esthetically unpleasant, esthetically acceptable, and esthetically pleasant. Intraexaminer and interexaminer agreements were evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient and Kendall coefficient of concordance. The differences between rater categories were analyzed using the Student-Newman-Keuls test (with P < .05 indicating a statistically significant difference).
RESULTS: Most of the sample was classified as esthetically acceptable. Orthodontists and plastic surgeons related to oral cleft rehabilitation gave the best scores to the facial profiles, followed by layperson examiners and by orthodontists and plastic surgeons unrelated to oral cleft rehabilitation. The middle third of the face, the nose, and the upper lip were frequently pointed out as contributors to the esthetic impairment.
CONCLUSIONS: The facial profile of rehabilitated adult patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate was considered esthetically acceptable because of morphologic limitations in the structures affected by the cleft. Laypersons and professionals unrelated to oral cleft rehabilitation seem to be more critical regarding facial esthetics than professionals involved with cleft rehabilitation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample comprised 23 adult patients (7 women and 16 men) with a mean age of 26.1 years, rehabilitated at a single center. Standardized photographs of the right and left facial profile were taken of each patient and subjectively evaluated by 25 examiners: 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons with expertise in oral cleft rehabilitation, 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons without expertise in oral cleft rehabilitation, and 5 laypersons. The facial profiles were classified into 3 categories: esthetically unpleasant, esthetically acceptable, and esthetically pleasant. Intraexaminer and interexaminer agreements were evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient and Kendall coefficient of concordance. The differences between rater categories were analyzed using the Student-Newman-Keuls test (with P < .05 indicating a statistically significant difference).
RESULTS: Most of the sample was classified as esthetically acceptable. Orthodontists and plastic surgeons related to oral cleft rehabilitation gave the best scores to the facial profiles, followed by layperson examiners and by orthodontists and plastic surgeons unrelated to oral cleft rehabilitation. The middle third of the face, the nose, and the upper lip were frequently pointed out as contributors to the esthetic impairment.
CONCLUSIONS: The facial profile of rehabilitated adult patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate was considered esthetically acceptable because of morphologic limitations in the structures affected by the cleft. Laypersons and professionals unrelated to oral cleft rehabilitation seem to be more critical regarding facial esthetics than professionals involved with cleft rehabilitation.