Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2022
Favorable Transverse Maxillary Development after Covering the Lateral Raw Surfaces with Buccal Fat Flaps in Modified Furlow Palatoplasty: A Three-Dimensional Imaging-Assisted Long-Term Comparative Outcome Study.
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.
Lo Chi-Chin, Denadai Rafael, Lin Hsiu-Hsia, Pai Betty Chien-Jung, Chu Yu-Ying, Lo Lun-Jou, Chou Pang-Yun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The pedicled buccal fat flap has recently been applied to cover the lateral raw surfaces during palatoplasty as an attempt to mitigate scar-induced transverse maxillary constriction during growth, but with no formal long-term comparative analysis. This three-dimensional imaging-assisted study assessed its impact on posterior transverse maxillary development.
METHODS: Cone beam computed tomographic scans from patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate who received buccal fat flap (buccal fat group; n = 22) or Surgicel (Surgicel group; n = 32) for covering lateral raw surfaces during modified Furlow palatoplasty at 9 to 10 months of age and had reached the age of 9 years were retrieved for analysis. Patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (nonpalatoplasty group; n = 24) were also included for comparison. Using three-dimensional maxillary image models, linear (U6T-MSP and U6J-MSP) and area measurements were calculated for cleft and noncleft posterior maxillary sides and for total posterior transverse maxillary dimension.
RESULTS: The buccal fat group had significantly (all p < 0.05) wider dimensions compared with the Surgicel group for all transverse maxillary measurements on both the cleft and noncleft sides, except for U6J-MSP and posterior palatal area parameters on the cleft side ( p > 0.05). The buccal fat group had significantly (all p < 0.05) wider total transverse maxillary dimensions compared with the Surgicel and nonpalatoplasty groups.
CONCLUSION: Covering the lateral raw surfaces with buccal fat flaps resulted in less posterior transverse maxillary constriction compared with the Surgicel-based covering procedure.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
METHODS: Cone beam computed tomographic scans from patients with unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate who received buccal fat flap (buccal fat group; n = 22) or Surgicel (Surgicel group; n = 32) for covering lateral raw surfaces during modified Furlow palatoplasty at 9 to 10 months of age and had reached the age of 9 years were retrieved for analysis. Patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (nonpalatoplasty group; n = 24) were also included for comparison. Using three-dimensional maxillary image models, linear (U6T-MSP and U6J-MSP) and area measurements were calculated for cleft and noncleft posterior maxillary sides and for total posterior transverse maxillary dimension.
RESULTS: The buccal fat group had significantly (all p < 0.05) wider dimensions compared with the Surgicel group for all transverse maxillary measurements on both the cleft and noncleft sides, except for U6J-MSP and posterior palatal area parameters on the cleft side ( p > 0.05). The buccal fat group had significantly (all p < 0.05) wider total transverse maxillary dimensions compared with the Surgicel and nonpalatoplasty groups.
CONCLUSION: Covering the lateral raw surfaces with buccal fat flaps resulted in less posterior transverse maxillary constriction compared with the Surgicel-based covering procedure.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.