Page 524 - Read Online

Page 10 of 15 Corthouts et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2020;7:46 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2020.97

Table 4. Comparison of cephalometric values of each study with UCLP patients in permanent dentition (12-23 y), classified
according to study population. Specification of groups can be found in Table 2

Authors Identification of n SNA (°) SNB (°) ANB (°)
groups Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
[9]
Asian Liao et al. , 2005 G1: OCLP 58 79.6 NR 78.3 NR 1.4 NR
G2: OCL 48 83.0 NR 78.6 NR 4.4 NR
P value* S a NS S a
Li et al. [10] , 2006 G1: OCLP (M/F) 47 73.5/73.2 4.7/6.8 74.8/75.8 4.7/4.9 -1.3/-2.6 2.8/3.9
G2: OCL (M/F) 35 72.6/75.1 5.3/3.4 73.3/75.2 4.3/6.0 -0.6/-0.0 4.0/4.2
G3: NN (M/F) 37 82.1/80.3 2.6/3.2 78.5/77.4 2.5/3.0 3.6/2.9 2.2/1.3
bc
bc
bc
P value (M/F)* S /S bc S /NS S /S abc
[6]
Khanna et al. , 2012 G1: OCLP 25 73.2 13.9 NR NR NR NR
G2: NOCLP 47 83.6 4.3 NR NR NR NR
P value* S a NR NR
[15]
Chen et al. , 2012 G1: OCLP 15 75.5 6.6 79.7 6.4 -4.2 5.1
G2: OCL 15 79.3 4.9 79 3.3 0.3 4.4
G3: NN 15 80.6 3.0 77.2 2.9 3.4 1.9
P value* S b NS S abc
[17]
Liu et al. , 2018 G1: OCLP 37 75.8 5.1 NR NR NR NR
G2: OCL 37 77.3 4.8 NR NR NR NR
G3: NN 37 81.7 2.9 NR NR NR NR
P value* S bc NR NR
[12]
European Meazzini et al. , 2010 G1: OCLP 15 74.9 3.5 76.9 3.0 -1.9 2.7
G2: OCLP 10 76.7 3.3 77.4 2.6 -0.8 3.3
G3: OCLP 15 75.8 3.5 77.1 4.3 -1.3 1.9
P value* NR NR NR
Mueller et al. [14] , 2012 G1: OCLP 7 76 4 NR NR -0.2 3
G2: Eurocleft† 25 75 4 NR NR 0.9 3
G3: NN 71 81 4 NR NR 4 2
P value* S bc NR S bc
a
b
c
†Mean value from all centers that completed the Eurocleft study; G1-G2: P-value < 0.05; G1-G3: P-value < 0.05; G2-G3: P-value <
0.05. *P-value < 0.05 was regarded as significant. Comparisons between groups are mentioned only when undertaken in the study and
regarded as significant. G: group; F: female; M: male; n: number of sample size; NN: noncleft normal control group; NOCLP: surgically
untreated unilateral cleft lip and palate; NR: not reported; NS: not significant; OCL: unilateral cleft lip and palate with operated cleft
lip only; OCLP: unilateral cleft lip and palate with operated cleft lip and palate; UCLP: unilateral cleft lip and palate; S: significant; SD:
standard deviation; y: years
treated UCLP patients between the age of 12 and 20 years old. They found different values by comparing
the cephalometric measurements of the two groups, and they concluded that surgical intervention does
interfere with growth in the facial region due to scar tissue in the lip and palate.

Four articles identified the effects of palate repair on maxillary morphology [9,10,15,17] . These studies recruited
patients with non-syndromic UCLP who had lip repair only (OCL) and patients with non-syndromic
UCLP who had lip and palate repairs (OCLP). Palate repair at an early stage in patients with UCLP seems
to result, in the long run, in a larger retrusion of the maxilla (SNA) and smaller anteroposterior jaw relation
(ANB) than in the OCL group, who demonstrated an almost normal maxillary growth [9,15,17] . Opposed to
[10]
this view, Li et al. reported a smaller SNA angle in both OCL and OCLP groups than the normal control
group and concluded that lip repair is primarily responsible for the midfacial hypodevelopment in cleft
patients.

[16]
However, Zheng et al. attributes the difference in cephalometric results to the intrinsic effect of UCLP
on the maxilla resulting in a developmental deficiency and claims that surgery has minor effects on growth
disturbances. They discovered that the tendency in patients with UCLP (with or without surgical repair)
toward a less protruded alveolar maxilla (SNA) and a more protruded alveolar mandible (SNB) gave rise to
the low anteroposterior jaw relation at the alveolar level (ANB).