Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft.
until further notice
SourceCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 42, 5, (2005), pp. 512-6
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Orthodontics and Oral Biology
Preventative Restorative Dentistry
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
SubjectNCEBP 2: Evaluation of complex medical interventions; UMCN 4.3: Tissue engineering and reconstructive surgery
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dental arch relationships of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with a two-stage palatal closure and to compare them with the six centers from the Eurocleft study that used various treatment protocols. DESIGN: Repeated-measures study. SETTING: Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Records of 9-year-old children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (n = 43) were included.Interventions: The dental arch relationships of these patients were assessed by applying the Goslon Yardstick and subsequently compared with the Goslon outcome of the six-center Eurocleft study. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statistics of intra- and interexaminer agreement. RESULTS: For the Nijmegen UCLP group, 9% of dental arch relationships had a Goslon score of 1, 52% had a score of 2, 30% has a score of 3, 9% had a score of 4, and none had a score of 5. The mean Nijmegen Goslon score showed no significant differences with Eurocleft centers A, B, and E, which achieved the best treatment results, but did significantly differ from Goslon outcomes of Eurocleft centers D (p < .001), C, and F (p < .01), which had relatively poor treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcome of the patients in the Nijmegen UCLP group treated with two-stage palatal closure was comparable with the results of the Eurocleft centers with the best outcome. Treatment protocol could not explain differences in the quality of treatment results.
Upload full text