Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to measure the association between the magnitude of advancement and dental and skeletal relapse in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). METHODS:A single-institution retrospective cohort study of skeletally matured patients with CLP who underwent isolated Le Fort I advancement surgery between 2013 and 2019 was studied. Patients were included if they had lateral cephalograms or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at preoperative (T1), immediately postoperative (T2), and 1-year follow-up (T3). Lateral cephalometric landmarks were digitized and measured. The sample was divided on the basis of the magnitude of skeletal advancement: minor (<5 mm), moderate (≥5 but <10 mm), and major (≥10 mm) advancement groups. The mean advancement and relapse were compared between groups using 1-way ANOVA. Correlation between the amount of surgical advancement and relapse was evaluated. RESULTS:Forty-nine patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla met inclusion criteria and the sample consisted of 36 males and 13 females with the mean age of 19.5 years. In the minor, moderate, and major advancement groups, the mean advancement at point A was +4.1 ± 0.4, + 7.5 ± 1.4, and +11.3 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, the mean relapse at point A was -1.3 ± 1.2, -1.1 ± 1.2, and -1.7 ± 1.5 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the relapse amount between all surgical groups. No correlation between the magnitude of advancement and relapse was found. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference in skeletal stability between a minor (<5 mm), moderate (≥5 but <10 mm), and major (≥10 mm) Le Fort I advancement groups in patients with clefts. Regardless of the degree of advancement, mild skeletal relapse was observed in all 3 groups.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To compare the prevalence of dental malformations and agenesis in patients who received or did not receive gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS/UNASSIGNED:Review of patients born January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus, with or without clefting of the secondary palate, who received GPP and/or secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG). Patients were included if they had clinical images and dental radiographs available at ages 5 to 9 and 10 to 12 years. Ninety-four patients met the inclusion criteria; 46 treated with GPP, and 48 who did not receive GPP. OUTCOME MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:tests. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Cleft side lateral incisors were absent in 54% of GPP patients, compared to 50% in the no-GPP group. Two patients in the GPP group and 1 in the no-GPP group had supernumerary lateral incisors. Most lateral incisors were undersized or peg shaped in both the no-GPP (83.3%) and GPP (71.4%) groups. In the GPP group, 5 (10.9%) patients exhibited central incisor agenesis, and 3 had significant hypoplasia. In the no-GPP group, 4 (8.3%) patients exhibited central incisor agenesis, and 5 (10.5%) significant hypoplasia. These differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Gingivoperiosteoplasty was not associated with increased prevalence of dental malformation or agenesis. When performed appropriately, GPP is a safe treatment technique that does not increase the risk of dental anomalies.

A combined surgical and orthodontic approach to midface and mandibular distraction optimizes stability and outcomes. Orthodontic considerations include proper planning of the distraction vector, appropriate device use, and thorough follow-up through the consolidation and postoperative period. The dental occlusion must be managed throughout treatment in order to achieve ideal results.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Utilize 3-dimensional (3D) photography to evaluate the nasolabial changes in infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) who underwent nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and primary reconstructive surgery. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:coordinates to obtain the linear and angular measurements. Nasal form changes were measured and analyzed between T1 (0.5 months old), T2 (5 months old), and T3 (6 months old). Intraclass correlation coefficient was performed for intrarater reliability. Averaged data from the 3D images was statistically analyzed from T1 to T2 and T2 to T3 with Wilcoxon tests. Unaffected infant norms from the Farkas publication were used as a control sample. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:After NAM therapy, statistically significant changes in the position of subnasale and labius superius improved nasolabial symmetry. Both retruded after NAM were displaced downward after NAM and surgical correction with respect to soft tissue nasion. The nasal tip's projection was maintained with NAM and surgical correction. The columella lengthened from 1.4 to 4.71 mm following NAM. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:There was a significant improvement in the nasolabial anatomy after NAM, and this was further enhanced after primary reconstructive surgery.

BACKGROUND:The authors present outcomes analysis of the nasoalveolar molding treatment protocol in patients with a cleft followed from birth to facial maturity. METHODS:A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of cleft patients who underwent nasoalveolar molding between 1990 and 2000. Collected data included surgical and orthodontic outcomes and incidence of gingivoperiosteoplasty, alveolar bone grafting, surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, palatal fistula repair, orthognathic surgery, nose and/or lip revision, and facial growth. RESULTS:One hundred seven patients met inclusion criteria (69 with unilateral and 38 with bilateral cleft lip and palate). Eighty-five percent (91 of 107) underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty (unilateral: 78 percent, 54 of 69; bilateral: 97 percent, 37 of 38). Of those patients, 57 percent (52 of 91) did not require alveolar bone grafting (unilateral: 59 percent, 32 of 54; bilateral: 54 percent, 20 of 37). Twelve percent (13 of 107) of all study patients underwent revision surgery to the lip and/or nose before facial maturity (unilateral: 9 percent, six of 69; bilateral: 18 percent, seven of 38). Nineteen percent (20 of 107) did not require a revision surgery, alveolar bone grafting, or orthognathic surgery (unilateral: 20 percent, 14 of 69; bilateral: 16 percent, six of 38). Cephalometric analysis was performed on all patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. No significant statistical difference was found in maxillary position or facial proportion. Average age at last follow-up was 20 years (range, 15 years 4 months to 26 years 10 months). CONCLUSIONS:Nasoalveolar molding demonstrates a low rate of soft-tissue revision and alveolar bone grafting, and a low number of total operations per patient from birth to facial maturity. Facial growth analysis at facial maturity in patients who underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty and nasoalveolar molding suggests that this proposal may not hinder midface growth. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, IV.

Background/Purpose: Newborns with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) exceed 100 000 per year in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Patients, if left untreated, are at high risk of morbidity, due to functional deficits, malnutrition, aspiration, and infections. Limited resources in LMICs create barriers for establishing Interdisciplinary Cleft Care programs. Surgical missions driven by nonprofit organizations have been able to partially address this need, but their ability to promote long-term sustainable cleft care has come to a question. Simulation-based training has emerged as an essential tool for enhancing medical education and training. Global Smile Foundation, a nonprofit organization, is a leader in the establishment of Interdisciplinary Cleft Care programs, with its volunteers being involved in cleft care for over 3 decades. We were able to demonstrate the efficacy of our first Simulation-Based Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshop (SBCCW), in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region, and its wide acceptance by our recipients. In the current study, we want to prove the effectiveness and successfulness of our second SBCCW, in Latin America. Methods/Description: Our second SBCCW took place in Lima, Peru, in October 2019. Hands-on simulations of CLP repair using highfidelity CLP simulators were also provided to our participants. Participants were asked to complete a satisfaction survey at the end. Attendees were also asked about the obstacles facing cleft care in their countries and the possible interventions to overcome these obstacles. Short-term (at the end of the SBCCW) and medium-term (6 months later) follow ups were conducted by our team collecting data about improvements in the participants' competence, performance, outcomes, clinical care, and whether the SBCCW has changed their practice. Procedural confidence for pre- and postsimulation was evaluated using the psychometrically validated tool for measuring selfconfidence during surgical learning. Descriptive statistics were used for the collected data. Data analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. XXResult(s): Ninety-eight of the 198 participants from 29 different countries filled the satisfaction survey at the end of the workshop. The 2 most common barriers to cleft care in LMICs identified by our participants are the absence of financial support and the absence of multidisciplinary teams. Respondents claimed an improvement in their procedural confidence after the simulation sessions. Respondents had consistent short-term and medium-term impressions about the SBCCW positively impacting their competence, performance, outcomes, clinical care, and even changing their practice. XXConclusion(s): This study provides evidence that implementation of a SBCCW leads to a significantly improved procedural confidence, as well as a sustained positive impact on the clinical practice of the participants, reinforcing its role as a cleft care capacity-building tool

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:This study evaluates skeletal and dental outcomes of LeFort I advancement surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) with varying degrees of maxillary skeletal hypoplasia. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective study. METHOD/UNASSIGNED:: ≤-10 mm. PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Fifty-one patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla who met inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE/UNASSIGNED:Skeletal and dental stability post-LeFort I surgery at a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:At T2, LeFort I surgery produced an average correction of maxillary hypoplasia by 6.4 ± 0.6, 8.1 ± 0.4, and 10.7 ± 0.8 mm in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. There was a mean relapse of 1 to 1.5 mm observed in all groups. At T3, no statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical groups and controls at angle Sella, Nasion, A point (SNA), A point, Nasion, B point (ANB), and overjet outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement produces a stable correction in mild, moderate, and severe skeletal maxillary hypoplasia. Overcorrection is recommended in all patients with CLP to compensate for the expected postsurgical skeletal relapse.