MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery · 2007
Nasolabial appearance in unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Nollet Pieter J P M, Kuijpers-Jagtman Anne Marie, Chatzigianni Athina, Semb Gunvor, Shaw William C, Bronkhorst Ewald M, Katsaros Christos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nasolabial appearance of patients with UCLAP treated in Nijmegen and to compare them with those from six other individual centers from the Eurocleft study. Relationships between nasolabial aesthetics, dental arch relationships and cleft width at birth were also investigated.
PATIENTS: Children of Caucasian origin with complete UCLAP (n=42 consecutive cases) from the Nijmegen Cleft Palate Unit, The Netherlands.
METHODS: Nasolabial appearance was assessed by applying an aesthetic index and subsequently compared with the six-centre Eurocleft study. Cleft width at birth was measured on maxillary plaster casts.
RESULTS: The 90% central range for the overall aesthetic rating of the 42 Nijmegen patients is 2.0-3.7 on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=very good nasolabial appearance, 5=very poor nasolabial appearance). With regard to the overall aesthetic rating, Nijmegen showed similar treatment outcomes with Eurocleft centres A, D, E and F. Nijmegen scored significantly better than Eurocleft centre C and significantly worse than Eurocleft centre B (p<or=0.05). No significant correlations between aesthetic ratings, dental arch relationships and cleft width at birth could be established for the Nijmegen patients.
CONCLUSION: Treatment protocol could not explain differences in treatment results. The current comparative study is supportive in the selection of patient records that are suitable for the "good practice archive" which is part of the EUROCRAN project.
PATIENTS: Children of Caucasian origin with complete UCLAP (n=42 consecutive cases) from the Nijmegen Cleft Palate Unit, The Netherlands.
METHODS: Nasolabial appearance was assessed by applying an aesthetic index and subsequently compared with the six-centre Eurocleft study. Cleft width at birth was measured on maxillary plaster casts.
RESULTS: The 90% central range for the overall aesthetic rating of the 42 Nijmegen patients is 2.0-3.7 on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=very good nasolabial appearance, 5=very poor nasolabial appearance). With regard to the overall aesthetic rating, Nijmegen showed similar treatment outcomes with Eurocleft centres A, D, E and F. Nijmegen scored significantly better than Eurocleft centre C and significantly worse than Eurocleft centre B (p<or=0.05). No significant correlations between aesthetic ratings, dental arch relationships and cleft width at birth could be established for the Nijmegen patients.
CONCLUSION: Treatment protocol could not explain differences in treatment results. The current comparative study is supportive in the selection of patient records that are suitable for the "good practice archive" which is part of the EUROCRAN project.