Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) on patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) are unknown. The authors report clinical outcomes of facially mature patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM and gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). METHODS:A single-institution retrospective study of nonsyndromic patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM between 1991 and 2000 was performed. All study patients were followed to skeletal maturity, at which time a lateral cephalogram was obtained. The total number of cleft operations and cephalometric measures was compared with a previously published external cohort of patients with complete and incomplete BCLP in which a minority (16.7%) underwent presurgical orthopedics before cleft lip repair without GPP. RESULTS:Twenty-four patients with BCLP comprised the study cohort. All patients underwent GPP, 13 (54.2%) underwent alveolar bone graft, and nine (37.5%) required speech surgery. The median number of operations per patient was five (interquartile range, two), compared with eight (interquartile range, three) in the external cohort ( P < 0.001). Average age at the time of lateral cephalogram was 18.64 years (1.92). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the external cohort with respect to sella-nasion-point A angle (SNA) [73 degrees (6 degrees) versus 75 degrees (11 degrees); P = 0.186] or sella-nasion-point B angle (SNA) [78 degrees (6 degrees) versus 74 degrees (9 degrees); P = 0.574]. Median ANB (SNA - SNB) was -3 degrees (5 degrees) compared with -1 degree (7 degrees; P = 0.024). Twenty patients (83.3%) underwent orthognathic surgery. CONCLUSION:Patients with BCLP who underwent NAM and GPP had significantly fewer total cleft operations and mixed midface growth outcomes at facial maturity compared with patients who did not undergo this treatment protocol. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) can avoid secondary alveolar bone graft in up to 60% of patients. The effects of GPP on maxillary growth are a concern. However, palatoplasty can also negatively impact facial growth. This study quantifies the isolated effects of GPP and cleft palate repair on maxillary growth at the age of mixed dentition. METHODS:A single institution, retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary reconstruction for unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (CLA) or cleft lip and palate (CLP) was performed. Study patients had lateral cephalograms at age of mixed dentition. Patients were stratified into four groups: CLA with GPP (CLA+GPP), CLA without GPP (CLA-GPP), CLP with GPP (CLP+GPP), and CLP without GPP (CLP-GPP). Cephalometric measurements included: sella-nasion-point A (SNA), sella-nasion-point B (SNB), and A point-nasion-B point (ANB). Landmarks were compared between patient groups and to Eurocleft Center D data. RESULTS:110 patients met inclusion criteria: 7 CLA-GPP, 16 CLA+GPP, 24 CLP-GPP, and 63 CLP+GPP patients. There were no significant differences in SNA, SNB, and ANB between CLA+GPP and CLA-GPP, or between CLP+GPP and CLP-GPP groups. In patients who did not receive GPP, SNA was significantly lower in patients with a cleft palate compared to patients with an intact palate (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in SNA or SNB of CLP-GPP or CLP+GPP groups when compared to Eurocleft data. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:When controlling for the effects of cleft palate repair, GPP does not appear to negatively affect midface growth at the age of mixed dentition.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This paper describes the changes in maxillary arch morphology in infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) following nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and with follow up to assess the need for secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG) and premaxillary repositioning surgery at preadolescence. METHODS/DESCRIPTION/UNASSIGNED:Treatment records of infants with BCLP treated with NAM between 2003 and 2013 were reviewed. Patients with complete BCLP who underwent NAM and had complete sets of maxillary casts at T 0 pre-NAM (mean = 27 days), T 1 post-NAM (mean = 6 months and 5 days), and T 2 before palate surgery (mean = 11 months and 15 days) were included. The sample comprised 23 infants (18 male, 5 female). Casts were digitized and analyzed using three dimensional software. The need for secondary ABG and premaxillary repositioning surgery was assessed at preadolescent follow-up (mean = 8.3 years). RESULTS:Cleft width was reduced on average by 4.73 mm (SD ± 3.15 mm) and 6.56 mm (SD ± 4.65) on the right and left sides, respectively. At T 1, 13 (56.52%) patients underwent bilateral gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP), 8 (34.78%) patients unilateral GPP, and 2 patients (8.7%) did not undergo GPP. 34/46 clefts sites (73.91%) underwent GPP while 12 (26.08%) did not. At preadolescent follow-up of 19 patients, 7 patients (36.84%) did not need ABG on either side, 8 (42.10%) needed ABG on 1 side, and 4 (21.05%) needed ABG on both sides. None of the patients needed premaxillary repositioning surgery. CONCLUSIONS:Nasoalveolar molding treatment significantly improves the position of the premaxilla before primary repair, and there is a significant reduction in the need for secondary ABG and premaxillary repositioning surgery at preadolescence.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Simultaneous Le Fort III/I (LF III/I) osteotomies are often performed when a differential advancement of the upper and lower midface is needed. This study aims to evaluate midface position preoperative and 1 week postoperative in patients with severe midface hypoplasia. In addition, this study aims to compare the planned surgical movements to the actual postoperative movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted using cephalometry for patients treated with a simultaneous LF III/I osteotomy at a single institution. Osteotomies were performed during 1980-2018 on skeletally mature patients with a craniofacial syndrome, with clinical and radiographic follow-up available. RESULTS:Twelve patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 20.2±6.4 years. Treatment resulted in statistically significant anterior movements related to Orbitale, anterior nasal spine, A Point, and the upper incisor tip, and inferior movements related to anterior nasal spine, A Point, upper and lower incisor tips, B point, and pogonion. Stability after 1 year showed only statistically significant changes at ANB. The predictable error for planned movements versus actual movements was greater in the vertical plane than the horizontal plane. CONCLUSIONS:A simultaneous LF III/I osteotomy significantly improved the midface position and occlusal relationship in syndromic patients with midface hypoplasia in a predictable manner. Further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate the conclusions.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this investigation is to determine if the nasal form of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with pre-surgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) therapy, primary lip-nose surgery, and post-surgical Nostril Retainer (PSNR) is different from patients treated with pre-surgical NAM and primary lip and nose surgery alone. DESIGN/METHODS:A cross-sectional, retrospective review of 50 consecutive non-syndromic patients with UCLP: 24 treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery followed by PSNR (Group I) compared to 26 patients treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery without PSNR (Group II). Polyvinyl siloxane nasal impressions were performed at the average age of 12 months and 6 days. Bilateral measurements of alar width at maximum convexity, total alar base width, nasal tip projection, columella length, and nostril aperture width and height were recorded. Statistical comparison of cleft versus non-cleft side nasal measurements were performed within Group I and Group II, as well as comparison of the difference between the two groups. RESULTS:Cleft side nasal dimension was statistically significantly better in Group I than Group II across all measures except nasal projection (P<0.05). Group I showed less difference between the cleft and non-cleft side in all six measurements than Group II (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a significant difference in the nasal shape of patients who underwent PSNR compared to those that did not. The patients who used PSNR showed better nasal shape at the average age of 12 months than the control group.

OBJECTIVE:Describe the first hybrid global simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshop, evaluate impact on participants, and compare experiences based on in-person versus virtual attendance. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional survey-based evaluation. SETTING/METHODS:International comprehensive cleft care workshop. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Total of 489 participants. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Three-day simulation-based hybrid comprehensive cleft care workshop. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Participant demographic data, perceived barriers and interventions needed for global comprehensive cleft care delivery, participant workshop satisfaction, and perceived short-term impact on practice stratified by in-person versus virtual attendance. RESULTS: = .01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Hybrid simulation-based educational comprehensive cleft care workshops are overall well received by participants and have a positive perceived impact on their clinical practices. In-person attendance is associated with significantly higher satisfaction and perceived impact on practice. Considering that financial and health constraints may limit live meeting attendance, future efforts will focus on making in-person and virtual attendance more comparable.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To examine the growth rate discrepancy of the affected and unaffected ramus heights in Pruzansky Type I and Type II mandibles. METHODS:This is a serial retrospective longitudinal growth study of 30 untreated patients (21 males and 9 females) with UCMF (age range from 5 years to 14 years). The mean age of patients was 8.5 years, and the mean follow-up records were 3.7 years. There were 13 patients in group I with a Pruzansky Type I mandible and 17 patients in group II with a Pruzansky Type II. The unaffected side of the mandible served as a control. Eighteen cephalometric parameters were examined at each of the two-time intervals. RESULTS:In patients with Pruzansky Type I mandible, the affected ramus grew on average 1.41 mm per year; the unaffected ramus grew 1.66 mm per year during the same period. In patients with Pruzansky Type II mandible, the affected ramus grew on average 0.84 mm per year; during the same period, unaffected ramus grew 1.79 per year. When the growth rate of the ramus height on the affected side was compared to the unaffected side, there was no statistically significant difference in Pruzansky Type I mandibles (p > .05); however, there was a statistically significant difference in the Pruzansky Type II mandibles (p < .05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The growth rate discrepancy of the affected and unaffected ramus heights was more severe in Pruzansky Type II mandibles than Pruzansky Type I mandibles explaining the progressive nature of facial asymmetry in Pruzansky II mandibles.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:To assess treatment outcome and 1-year stability of LeFort I advancement in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. METHODS:Thirty-five patients (age 20.65 ± 2.20 years) with unilateral (n = 25) or bilateral (n = 10) complete cleft lip and palate who underwent LeFort I advancement were included.Lateral cephalograms before surgery (T1), immediately postsurgery (T2), and at 1-year follow-up (T3) were superimposed, and the position of anterior nasal spine (ANS), A-point, and U1 Tip assessed using an x, y coordinate system. Differences between landmark positions at the 3-time points were analyzed using paired sample t-tests, with a significance defined as α ≤ 0.05. RESULTS:The mean surgical advancement in the horizontal direction (T2-T1) was 6.50 ± 2.62 mm at ANS (P < 0.001) and 7.05 ± 2.51 mm at A-point (P < 0.001). At a 1-year follow-up (T3-T2), the mean horizontal relapse at ANS was -1.41 ± 1.89 mm (P < 0.001) and -0.79 ± 1.48 mm at A-point (P 0.003). Mean horizontal relapse was 21.7% and 11% of surgical advancement when assessed at ANS and A-point, respectively. The central incisor tip position remained stable during the postsurgical period (0.12 ± 2.11 mm, P 0.732). At A-point, the mean vertical surgical change (T2-T1) was -0.96 ± 2.57 mm (P < 0.001). No significant post-treatment (T3-T2) vertical changes were detected at ANS or A-point. Phenotypic stability was excellent, with all patients maintaining positive overjet at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:LeFort I advancement in complete cleft lip and palate is stable, with less than a 2 mm relapse after 1-year. Surgical overcorrection by 10% to 20% is recommended to compensate for the expected skeletal relapse.

ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:This is a retrospective study to evaluate the postsurgical position of the maxilla and mandible in 5 matured craniofacial patients with unilateral craniofacial microsomia who underwent 2 jaw surgical procedures using computerized surgical planning. The craniofacial surgeon and orthodontist completed the virtual surgical treatment plan with a biomedical engineer's assistance via a web meeting. The treatment plan of each patient included 2 jaw surgery with genioplasty. At the maxillary dental midline, the planned mean advancement was 4 mm; yaw, a rotational correction towards the unaffected side was 4.96 mm; and impaction was 2.74 mm. The mean advancement measured at point B was 10.5 mm, and the rotational correction towards the unaffected side was 6.58 mm. The mean advancement following genioplasty was 8.43 mm, and the mean transverse correction was 6.33 mm towards the midsagittal plane. The intermediate surgical splint, final surgical splint, bone graft templates, and cutting guides were constructed utilizing computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology. The surgeon executed the treatment plan in the operating room using appropriate computer-generated guides and splints. A postsurgical cone-beam computed tomography scan was obtained and superimposed on the surgical treatment plan using Simplant OMS 10.1 software. The cranial base was used as a reference for superimposition. Three-dimensional color-coded displacement maps were generated to visually and quantitatively assess the surgical outcome. There was a mean error of 0.88 mm (+0.30) for the position of the maxillary anatomical structures from the planned position, and the anterior mandibular anatomical structures were on average 0.96 mm (+0.26) from the planned position.