The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2013
Facial growth and development in unilateral cleft lip and palate: comparison between secondary alveolar bone grafting and primary periosteoplasty.
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.
Cagáňová Veronika, Borský Jiří, Smahel Zbyněk, Velemínská Jana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate by comparison with a sample of patients who have undergone primary periosteoplasty.
DESIGN: Cephalometric analysis of lateral x-ray films in a retrospective semilongitudinal study.
PATIENTS: Lateral x-ray films of 18 secondary alveolar bone grafting patients and 48 primary periosteoplasty patients at 10 years of age and again at 15 years of age.
SETTINGS: The treatment of secondary alveolar bone grafting patients included lip repair according to Tennison, palatoplasty including retropositioning, pharyngeal flap surgery, and secondary alveolar bone grafting. The lips of primary periosteoplasty patient were repaired using the methods of Tennison and Veau, followed by primary periosteoplasty, palatoplasty including retropositioning, and pharyngeal flap surgery.
METHODS: Lateral radiographs were assessed using classical morphometry.
RESULTS: There were few significant differences at 10 years of age between the secondary alveolar bone grafting and primary periosteoplasty patients. At 15 years of age, there were several significant differences. Compared with primary periosteoplasty patients, subsequent development in patients who had undergone secondary alveolar bone grafting was characterized by a significantly better position of the upper and lower dentoalveolar components in relation to the facial plane, a higher increase in the global convexity of the soft profile, a significantly better maxillary inclination, and a more favorable development of vertical intermaxillary relationships.
CONCLUSION: Craniofacial development in secondary alveolar bone grafting patients was better than that in primary periosteoplasty patients due to the more marked facial convexity, the increased prominence of the nose, and better vertical intermaxillary relationships.
DESIGN: Cephalometric analysis of lateral x-ray films in a retrospective semilongitudinal study.
PATIENTS: Lateral x-ray films of 18 secondary alveolar bone grafting patients and 48 primary periosteoplasty patients at 10 years of age and again at 15 years of age.
SETTINGS: The treatment of secondary alveolar bone grafting patients included lip repair according to Tennison, palatoplasty including retropositioning, pharyngeal flap surgery, and secondary alveolar bone grafting. The lips of primary periosteoplasty patient were repaired using the methods of Tennison and Veau, followed by primary periosteoplasty, palatoplasty including retropositioning, and pharyngeal flap surgery.
METHODS: Lateral radiographs were assessed using classical morphometry.
RESULTS: There were few significant differences at 10 years of age between the secondary alveolar bone grafting and primary periosteoplasty patients. At 15 years of age, there were several significant differences. Compared with primary periosteoplasty patients, subsequent development in patients who had undergone secondary alveolar bone grafting was characterized by a significantly better position of the upper and lower dentoalveolar components in relation to the facial plane, a higher increase in the global convexity of the soft profile, a significantly better maxillary inclination, and a more favorable development of vertical intermaxillary relationships.
CONCLUSION: Craniofacial development in secondary alveolar bone grafting patients was better than that in primary periosteoplasty patients due to the more marked facial convexity, the increased prominence of the nose, and better vertical intermaxillary relationships.