Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2014
The effects of lip revision surgery on nasolabial esthetics in patients with cleft lip.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Mercado A M, Phillips C, Vig K W L, Trotman C-A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine the concordance among surgeons on subjective assessments of nasolabial esthetics in children with repaired cleft lip; and 2) to evaluate longitudinal changes in nasolabial esthetics in relation to cleft lip revision surgery.
SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: School of Dentistry at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Children with repaired unilateral cleft lip: 32 had lip revision surgery and 27 did not have surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study from a non-randomized clinical trial. Ratings of nasolabial esthetics performed by six surgeons using the Asher-McDade scale at baseline and 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Concordance among surgeons ranged from poor to acceptable. Nasolabial ratings at follow-up were better in the Revision group than in the Non-Revision group, although differences were small. The most prevalent change in the Revision Group was improvement in one or more units on the scale, while 'no change' was most prevalent in the Non-Revision group. Participants in the Revision group were more likely to receive a 'no' in relation to the need for lip or nose revision at the follow-up visit.
CONCLUSION: There were mild esthetic improvements observed in relation to lip revision surgery, which should be interpreted with caution given the subjectivity of the rating method used.
SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: School of Dentistry at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Children with repaired unilateral cleft lip: 32 had lip revision surgery and 27 did not have surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study from a non-randomized clinical trial. Ratings of nasolabial esthetics performed by six surgeons using the Asher-McDade scale at baseline and 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Concordance among surgeons ranged from poor to acceptable. Nasolabial ratings at follow-up were better in the Revision group than in the Non-Revision group, although differences were small. The most prevalent change in the Revision Group was improvement in one or more units on the scale, while 'no change' was most prevalent in the Non-Revision group. Participants in the Revision group were more likely to receive a 'no' in relation to the need for lip or nose revision at the follow-up visit.
CONCLUSION: There were mild esthetic improvements observed in relation to lip revision surgery, which should be interpreted with caution given the subjectivity of the rating method used.