The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2023
Dental Rehabilitation of the Unilateral Cleft Dental Gap: A Single Institution Experience With Long-Term Follow-Up.
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.
Lee Kevin C, Yau Vicky, Khoshnevisan Mohammad A, Eisig Sidney B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with the management of the cleft dental gap after alveolar bone grafting.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus or palate who had successful alveolar bone grafting. Our primary study outcome was alveolar cleft management (orthodontic closure or space maintenance). Our secondary study outcome was the rate of fixed dental rehabilitation. Univariate comparisons were made with SAS 9.4.
RESULTS: The final study sample consisted of 54 patients. Most patients were treated with orthodontic closure (55.6%). Patients missing multiple teeth ( P < 0.01) were less likely to receive orthodontic closure. Orthodontic closure was not associated with differences in intermaxillary midline coincidence ( P = 0.22) or the need for LeFort advancement ( P = 0.15). Only 41.7% of patients who were managed with space maintenance obtained a fixed prosthesis. Hispanic ethnicity ( P < 0.01) and Medicaid insurance ( P < 0.01) were associated with lower rates of fixed dental rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic closure was the most common approach, and it did not result in significant maxillary midline distortion. Less than half of patients treated with space maintenance obtained fixed restorations. Socioeconomic barriers are likely preventing access to definitive dental rehabilitation in patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus or palate.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus or palate who had successful alveolar bone grafting. Our primary study outcome was alveolar cleft management (orthodontic closure or space maintenance). Our secondary study outcome was the rate of fixed dental rehabilitation. Univariate comparisons were made with SAS 9.4.
RESULTS: The final study sample consisted of 54 patients. Most patients were treated with orthodontic closure (55.6%). Patients missing multiple teeth ( P < 0.01) were less likely to receive orthodontic closure. Orthodontic closure was not associated with differences in intermaxillary midline coincidence ( P = 0.22) or the need for LeFort advancement ( P = 0.15). Only 41.7% of patients who were managed with space maintenance obtained a fixed prosthesis. Hispanic ethnicity ( P < 0.01) and Medicaid insurance ( P < 0.01) were associated with lower rates of fixed dental rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic closure was the most common approach, and it did not result in significant maxillary midline distortion. Less than half of patients treated with space maintenance obtained fixed restorations. Socioeconomic barriers are likely preventing access to definitive dental rehabilitation in patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus or palate.