Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To highlight the challenges and lessons learned in tooth-bearing maxillomandibular facial allotransplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Two patients with ballistic composite facial injury underwent tooth-bearing maxillomandibular facial transplantation (FT) after informed consent and institutional review board approval. Patient 1 had undergone total face, double jaw, teeth, and tongue transplantation in March 2012. Patient 2 had undergone partial face, double jaw, and teeth transplantation in January 2018. Le Fort III and bilateral sagittal split skeletal osteotomies were performed in both transplants. Computerized surgical planning was used in both cases, and the allografts were transferred in intermaxillary fixation (IMF) with prefabricated dental splints before rigid skeletal fixation. RESULTS:Normal class I occlusion was achieved at the conclusion of each surgery. Patient 1 had developed a 2 × 2-mm palatal fistula in the early postoperative period and had also gradually developed class III malocclusion. Orthodontic treatment was started at 5 months after transplantation but failed. A Le Fort III advancement was performed 1 month later with successful restoration of class I occlusion. The palatal fistula was successfully repaired at 9 postoperative months. Patient 2 developed a postoperative palate and floor of mouth dehiscence, requiring palatal repair and hyoid and genioglossus advancement on postoperative day (POD) 11. Orthodontic treatment was initiated for Class II malocclusion. On POD 108, left mandibular nonunion was diagnosed. Left coronoidectomy, open reduction, and internal fixation were performed. IMF was maintained for 2 weeks. Orthodontic treatment was then resumed, with normalization of the occlusion by 10 months after FT. CONCLUSIONS:Maxillomandibular transplantation is a viable reconstructive solution for composite midface defects not amenable to autologous reconstruction. Improvement of functional outcomes and prevention of major complications rely on close attention to occlusal relationships, temporomandibular joint dynamics, dental health, and the intraoral donor-recipient soft tissue interface.

This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the impact of a nasoalveolar molding (NAM) protocol on midface growth in school-aged children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Data from 56 consecutively treated, NAM-prepared, Caucasian patients with non-syndromic UCLP from a single US cleft palate center were compared to pooled center data based on 56 patients with non-syndromic UCLP treated at 2 Eurocleft centers that did not use presurgical infant orthopedics (non-PSIO). Lateral cephalograms were obtained and 28 landmarks were identified. Published cephalometric measurements from Eurocleft centers were used for comparison. Seven cephalometric measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB, A'N'B', G'-Sn'-Pg', Sn-CT-LS, ANS-Me/N-Me%), available or derivable for both centers, were analyzed. Means and standard deviations for the 7 measurements were calculated for the NAM center. Student's t-tests were used to compare group means for 6 of the measures and a test of proportion was used for ANS-Me/N-Me%. No significant differences were found between the NAM protocol-prepared group and the Eurocleft non-PSIO centers on any of the 7 analyzed cephalometric relationships after accounting for false discovery rate. The NAM treatment protocol does not appear to impact skeletal or soft tissue facial growth in school-aged children with non-syndromic UCLP.

Treatment of cleft lip and palate ordinarily requires multiple interventions spanning the time of birth to adulthood. Restriction of facial growth, a common occurrence in affected children, is due to multiple factors. There are multiple surgical and therapeutic options, which may have influence on facial growth in these patients. As restriction to facial development can have significant implications to form, function, and psychological well-being, practitioners should have an appreciation for the effects of the different cleft therapies to facial growth. We have outlined and thoroughly reviewed in chronological order all of the interventions from birth to adulthood necessary in the comprehensive care of the patient with cleft lip and palate, along with the effects they may or may not have on facial growth.

BACKGROUND:Le Fort III advancement and/or distraction involve osteotomies and dysjunction in the region of the maxillary tuberosity in proximity to the maxillary posterior tooth buds. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of early conventional Le Fort III advancement and/or distraction on development and eruption of the maxillary posterior permanent molars. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients diagnosed with syndromic craniosynostosis, who underwent early Le Fort III or early midface distraction and late surgical intervention, was analyzed. RESULTS:In the early conventional Le Fort III surgery group, 93 percent of maxillary second molars and 28 percent of maxillary first molars experienced a disturbance in eruption. In the early distraction group, 82 percent of maxillary second molars and 20 percent of maxillary first molars experienced a disturbance in eruption. In the control group, the late conventional Le Fort III and the late distraction groups, only 26 percent of maxillary second molars and none of maxillary first molars experienced a disturbance in eruption. CONCLUSIONS:A common disruption seen postoperatively in the early Le Fort III and distraction groups was displacement of the second molars. The majority of the displaced tooth buds were located in the maxillary sinus. Overall, the early Le Fort III surgery groups experienced more frequent disturbances for both first and second molars, with the common sequela of displacement in the maxillary sinus, leading to the question of whether presurgical planning in cases of early intervention to address midface retrusion should include extraction/enucleation of the second molar tooth buds. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, III.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To investigate intrinsic palatal and alveolar tissue deficiency in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) as compared to age-matched individuals without UCLP using surface area measurements on 3D scans of plaster casts. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:22 maxillary casts of infants with UCLP from the Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery of NYU Langone Medical Center and 37 maxillary casts from infants without clefts from Sillman's longitudinal study were scanned by Ortho Insight 3D by Motion View Software, LLC (Chattanooga, TN) and measured using Checkpoint software (Stratovan, Davis, CA). The palatal and alveolar surface areas of each cast were measured. The most superior point of the alveolar ridge in front of the incisive papilla and the most superior point of each maxillary tuberosity were connected by a line that ran along the highest part of the alveolar ridge. This line was used to set boundaries for the palatal surface area measurements. The surface areas of greater and lesser segments were measured independently on UCLP casts. A total palatal surface area for the UCLP sample including width of the cleft gap was also measured. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .0001). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:An intrinsic palatal and alveolar tissue deficiency exists in patients born with UCLP. The amount of tissue deficiency for a patient with UCLP should be considered when developing and executing a patient-specific treatment plan.

Background/Purpose: Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) performed with lip repair has been shown to eliminate the need for alveolar bone grafting in two-thirds of treated cleft sites. In patients who have received GPP and subsequently require alveolar bone grafting (ABG), bone fill may be more favorable than in patients treated by ABG alone. However, some reports have suggested that GPP increases the risk of dental anomalies. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of dental anomalies in patients who were treated by GPP compared to those treated by ABG without GPP. Methods/Description: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients born January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, with unilateral complete cleft lip and alveolus, with or without cleft palate. Patients were included if they received GPP or ABG at our center, and had adequate panoramic radiographs and clinical images at ages 5 to 9 and 10 to 12 years. Clinical records were assessed for missing or malformed teeth by a blinded examiner. Cleft side lateral incisors were classified as absent, present, extracted, and supernumerary; cleft side lateral incisor morphology was classified as normal, undersized/ peg shaped, or severely malformed; cleft side central incisors were classified as absent, normal, or anomalous; and the number of cleft side premolars was recorded. Dental anomalies were compared between the GPP and no-GPP groups using the chi-square test.
Result(s): Ninety-four patients met inclusion criteria: 46 treated with GPP, and 48 patients who did not receive GPP. Among patients who received GPP, cleft-side lateral incisors were absent in 54% of patients, compared to 50% of patients who did not receive GPP. Two patients in the GPP group and 4 in the no-GPP group required lateral incisor extraction. Two patients in the GPP group and one in the no- GPP group had supernumerary lateral incisors. These differences were statistically nonsignificant (P = .919). The majority of lateral incisors were undersized or peg shaped in both the no-GPP (20, 83.3%) and GPP (15, 71.4%) groups. One patient in the GPP group had a severely malformed lateral incisor. These differences were not statistically significant (P = .442). Cleft side central incisors were present in the majority of patients. In the GPP group, 5 patients (10.9%) exhibited central incisor agenesis, and a further 3 had significant hypoplasia. In the no-GPP group, 4 patients (8.3%) exhibited central incisor agenesis, and 5 (10.5%) significant hypoplasia. There were no intergroup differences (P = .937). Eight patients in the GPP group and 14 in the no- GPP group were missing cleft side premolars; the difference was not statistically significant (P = .937).
Conclusion(s): In this sample, gingivoperiostoplasty was not associated with increased prevalence of agenesis or malformation of cleft side incisors or premolars. When performed appropriately, gingivoperiosteoplasty is a safe treatment technique that does not increase the risk of dental anomalies

Background/Purpose: Presurgical infant orthopedics has been employed since 1950 as an adjunctive neonatal therapy for the correction of cleft lip and palate. Most of these therapies did not address deformity of the nasal cartilage in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate as well as the deficiency of the columella tissue in infants with a bilateral cleft. The nasoalveolar molding (NAM) technique is a unique approach to presurgical infant orthopedics to reduce the severity of the initial cleft of the alveolar and the nasal deformity, particularly in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods/Description: In infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate, the premaxilla may be protrusive, mobile, and may show varying degree of asymmetrical displacement and rotation. In some instances, the premaxilla may be everted placed on top of the nasal tip with a very short columella length. Protruded premaxilla and the associated nasal deformity present a special challenge for the surgeon in achieving optimal repair during primary reconstructive surgery. This study session will demonstrate the NAM technique to treat patients with severe bilateral cleft lip and palate. The technique of correcting the protruded and asymmetrically displaced premaxilla, molding the alar cartilage and nonsurgical columella elongation will be discussed. Appliance design and weekly adjustment of the NAM appliance to accomplish the desired result will be presented. Special emphasis will be placed on leveling the premaxilla in asymmetric cases; retracting premaxilla in incomplete bilateral clefts and management of complications during the course of the NAM therapy will be discussed. For the successful outcome, the surgeon has to take the advantage of the NAM therapy during the primary repair. Surgical technique of 1-stage lip nose and alveolus surgery utilizing the presurgical preparation of infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate with NAM therapy will be discussed in detail. Long-term outcome of patients treated with NAM and primary reconstruction of nose lip and alveolus will be presented

Background/Purpose:Management of patientswith cleft lip and palate is complex and requires a multidisciplinary team with several treatment interventions. Proper sequencing and timing of orthodontic and surgical treatment is important for successful long-term outcome and reducing the burden of care on the families. This presentation will focus on orthodontic management of patients born with cleft lip and palate from infancy to skeletal maturity. Methods/Description: The management of patients with cleft lip and cleft palate requires extended orthodontic treatment and an interdisciplinary approach in providing these patients with optimal aesthetics, function, and stability. Orthodontic or orthopedic management in infancy, primary, mixed, and permanent dentition and after the completion of facial growth will be discussed with a proper interdisciplinary approach to treatment planning and treatment sequencing during each phase of orthodontic and surgical treatment. This presentation will discuss the presurgical infant orthopedic, pre and post bone graft orthodontics, phase II comprehensive orthodontic treatment, and LeFort I distraction and orthognathic surgery at skeletal maturity. Long-term outcome of treatment will be presented of patients treated from birth to adulthood

Background/Purpose: Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) performed concurrent with lip repair is an option for treating bony alveolar deficiency in patients with orofacial clefts. GPP has been demonstrated to produce bony continuity, eliminating the need for alveolar bone grafting (ABG) in two-thirds of treated cleft sites. The purpose of this study was to assess if early bone formation as produced by successful GPP influences maxillary canine eruption. Methods/Description: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients born between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007, with unilateral complete cleft lip and alveolus, with or without cleft palate. Patients were included if they had successful GPP or ABG, and had panoramic or maxillary CBCT radiographs available at age 5 to 9 (T1) and 9 to 12 (T2) years, with a minimum of 6 months between radiographs. Panoramic images were excluded if a head positioning error produced an occlusal plane greater than 15degree from perpendicular to midline. Panoramic images were used to assess maxillary canine sector, angulation relative to midline and ipsilateral occlusal plane, and cusp tip height from ipsilateral occlusal plane. CBCT images were used to assess the horizontal distance between the canine cusp tip and the maxillary arch form. Clinical charts were reviewed to determine if canines erupted successfully or required intervention. Finally, canine mesial-distal and labio-lingual position after eruption was assessed using occlusal photographs. Outcomes in GPP and ABG groups were compared, and results were stratified by ipsilateral lateral incisor presence or absence.
Result(s): Seventy-nine patients met inclusion; 24 had successful bone fill after GPP, and 55 after ABG. In patients with cleft-side lateral incisors present, no significant differences were found between GPP and ABG groups in canine angulation, height, sector, eruptive outcome, or timing of eruption. When spontaneous canine eruption occurred, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend to more mesial eruptive position in patients who were treated with GPP. In patients with cleft-side lateral incisor agenesis, initial canine angulation did not differ. Patients who were treated with GPP demonstrated 10.8degree +/- 11.1degree spontaneous canine uprighting from T1 to T2, while canine angulation was maintained in the ABG group; this difference was statistically significant (P = .001). The GPP group demonstrated greater canine descent from T1 to T2, resulting in significantly less distance from the occlusal plane (5.8 +/- 4.8 mm) compared to the ABG group (9.4+/-4.2 mm). Horizontal distance to arch did not differ between the groups. In the GPP group, 75% of patients demonstrated successful spontaneous canine eruption, compared to 41% in the ABG group, though this did not reach statistical significance (P = .146).
Conclusion(s): Gingivoperiosteoplasty favorably influenced the angulation, height, and eruptive success of cleft-side canines in patients. These benefits were predominantly noted in patients with congenital absence of lateral incisors