The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022
Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices.
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.
Garland Katie, Coyle Michelle, Foley Tim, Matic Damir
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters.
RESULTS: Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P < .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters.
RESULTS: Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P < .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.