References

Bardach J, Eisbach KJ. The influence of primary unilateral cleft lip repair on facial growth. Cleft Palate J. 1977; 14:88-97
Mars M, Houston WJB. A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology in un-operated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of age. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 1990; 27:7-10
Sandy J, Williams A, Mildinhall S, Murphy T, Bearn D, Shaw B, Sell D, Devlin B, Murray J. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Cleft Lip and Palate Study. Br J Orthod. 1998; 25:21-30
Vallino L. Speech, velopharyngeal function, and hearing before and after orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 48:1274-1281
Guyette T, Polley J, Figueroa A, Smith B. Changes in speech following maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001; 38:199-205
Kummer A, Strife J, Grau W, Creaghead N, Lee L. The effects of the Le Fort 1 osteotomy with maxillary movement on articulation, resonance and velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate J. 1989; 26:193-200
Chanchareonsook N, Whitehill T, Samman N. The effect of cranio-maxillofacial osteotomies and distraction osteogenesis on speech and velopharyngeal status: a critical review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006; 43:477-487
Watzke I, Turvey T, Warren D, Dalston R. Alterations in velopharyngeal function after maxillary advancement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 48:685-689
Okazaki K, Satoh K, Kato M, Iwanami M, Ohokubo F, Kobayashi K. Speech and velopharyngeal function following maxillary advancement in patients with cleft lip and palate. Annals Plastic Surg. 1993; 30:304-311
Janulewicz J, Costello B, Buckley M, Ford M, Close J, Gassner R. The effects of Le Fort 1 osteotomies on velopharyngeal and speech functions in cleft patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62:308-314
Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP, Feinmann C. Perceptions of outcome following orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34:210-213
Cunningham SJ, Feinmann C. Psychological assessment of patients requesting orthognathic surgery and the relevance of body dysmorphic disorder. Br J Orthod. 1998; 42:293-298
Williams RW, Travess HC, Williams AC. Patients' experiences after undergoing orthognathic surgery at NHS hospitals in the south west of England. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 42:419-431
Modig M, Andersson L, Wardh I. Patients' perception of improvement after orthognathic surgery: pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 44:24-27
Boyne PJ, Sands N. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal clefts. J Oral Surg. 1972; 30:87-92
Abyholm FE, Bergland O, Semb G. Secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. A surgical/orthodontic treatment enabling a non-prosthodontic rehabilitation in cleft lip and palate patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981; 15:127-140
Jones ML, Sugar AW. The late management of cleft lip and palate problems: a joint orthodontic/surgical approach. J Royal Coll Surg Ed. 1990; 35:376-386
Sugar AW, Honigmann K. Reconstruction of cleft lip and palate osseous defects. In: Greenberg A, Prein J (eds). New York: Springer; 2002
Sugar AW, Samuels R, Jones M, Bocca A, Newton C. Results of a modified cleft versus non-cleft maxillary osteotomy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999; 28
Eales EA, Newton C, Jones ML, Sugar AW. The accuracy of computerised prediction of the soft tissue profile: a study of 25 patients treated by means of the Le Fort I osteotomy. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1994; 9:141-152
Eales EA, Jones ML, Newton C, Sugar AW. A study of the accuracy of predicted soft tissue changes produced by a computer software package (COG 3.4) in a series of patients treated by the Le Fort 1 osteotomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995; 33:362-369
Smith AT. The use of orthodontic chain elastic for temporary intermaxillary fixation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993; 31:250-251
Henderson D, Jackson IT. Naso-maxillary hypoplasia: the Le Fort II osteotomy. Br J Oral Surg. 1973; 11:77-93

The orthognathic management of cleft lip and palate skeletal discrepancy: CLP series part 9

From Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2014 | Pages 15-22

Authors

Helen Extence

BSc(Hons), Cert MRCSLT, ABMU LHB

Lead Speech and Language Therapist, UK

Articles by Helen Extence

Vanessa Hammond

BSc(Hons), DClinPsy

Consultant and Lead Clinical Psychologist, South Wales Regional Cleft Lip and Palate Service, South Wales South West Managed Clinical Network for Cleft Lip and Palate.

Articles by Vanessa Hammond

Jenny Hunt

DClinPsych, ABMU LHB

Consultant and Lead Clinical Psychologist for the CLP Service, UK

Articles by Jenny Hunt

Adrian Sugar

FDS RCS(Eng, Edin), FDS RCPS MD(hc), ABMU LHB

Consultant Cleft and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Clinical Director South Wales Cleft Service, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK

Articles by Adrian Sugar

Abstract

A patient with a repaired cleft of lip and/or palate (CLP) may develop dentofacial disproportion, classically a Class III skeletal and inter-arch relationship, due to an underlying maxillary hypoplasia. The definitive correction of the dental and facial aesthetic and functional problems associated with this anomaly requires a multidisciplinary input involving orthodontists, surgeons, speech therapists and psychologists. A successful outcome is dependent on a close working relationship between these disciplines and a planned care pathway that is adapted to patient needs. This paper outlines such a care pathway.

Clinical Relevance: This paper offers the clinician an understanding of a multidisciplinary approach to the orthognathic management of a patient with cleft lip and palate.

Article

All elements of orthodontic management included in the care pathway of a patient with a repaired cleft of lip and/or palate (CLP) should be mindful of the potential for the development of facial disharmony and compromised inter-arch relationships during growth. Such skeletal discrepancies may be completely unrelated to the original congenital defect. However, previous lip or palatal surgery1,2 has been cited as a possible cause of abnormal maxillary growth which requires orthognathic correction.

The skeletal relationship, classically associated with CLP, is a Class III discrepancy that is characterized, predominantly, by maxillary antero-posterior deficiency. Although a range of Class II discrepancies may be associated with clefts of lip or palate, this discussion will focus on the management of Class III problems. Where skeletal discrepancies are mild or moderate, the opportunity for orthodontic camouflage exists through maxillary labial segment advancement and mandibular labial segment retraction. Such approaches before adulthood should never involve mandibular tooth loss as growth prediction in CLP cases is notoriously difficult, and unfavourable late facial growth can sometimes present facial and dental relationships that can only be managed orthognathically (Figure 1). It is, therefore, important to consider the potential orthognathic needs of a patient before beginning a definitive orthodontic treatment plan. Where later orthognathic management is possible, early orthodontic interventions should ideally be limited to maxillary arch alignment alone.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available