Summary Objectives To assess arch width, palatal surface area, and volume in surgically treated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) in mixed dentition children in comparison with non-cleft lip and palate (NCLP) children using a 3D laser scanning. Materials and Methods 38 subjects (Caucasian origin), 5.63-11.9 years of age (mean, 9.33 ± 1.67 years), were included. 19 in each group (UCLP and NCLP). Digital dental casts were obtained using a 3 Shape R700 laser scanner. Intercanine and intermolar widths (cusp and gingival levels), palatal surface area and volume were measured. An independent sample Student's t-Test and an ANOVA were undertaken with significance level set as P < 0.05. Results Intercanine widths at the cusp (5.60 mm; P < 0.001) and at the gingival level (3.11 mm; P = 0.014), palatal area (141.5 mm 2; P = 0.009) and volume (890.7 mm 3; P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the UCLP compared to the control group. Limitations A smaller part of the subjects was in late mixed dentition phase. To overcome this limitation a matched control group was used. In seven subjects with UCLP, some teeth were missing, which might have had an influence on the dental measurements. However, these subjects could not be excluded because eliminating more severely affected subjects, would have introduced bias. Conclusions Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate highlighted significant differences between UCLP and non-UCLP subjects in mixed dentition phase, suggesting that orthopaedic maxillary expansion is advisable in UCLP.
Summary Objectives To assess arch width, palatal surface area, and volume in surgically treated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) in mixed dentition children in comparison with non-cleft lip and palate (NCLP) children using a 3D laser scanning. Materials and Methods 38 subjects (Caucasian origin), 5.63-11.9 years of age (mean, 9.33 ± 1.67 years), were included. 19 in each group (UCLP and NCLP). Digital dental casts were obtained using a 3 Shape R700 laser scanner. Intercanine and intermolar widths (cusp and gingival levels), palatal surface area and volume were measured. An independent sample Student's t-Test and an ANOVA were undertaken with significance level set as P < 0.05. Results Intercanine widths at the cusp (5.60 mm; P < 0.001) and at the gingival level (3.11 mm; P = 0.014), palatal area (141.5 mm 2; P = 0.009) and volume (890.7 mm 3; P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the UCLP compared to the control group. Limitations A smaller part of the subjects was in late mixed dentition phase. To overcome this limitation a matched control group was used. In seven subjects with UCLP, some teeth were missing, which might have had an influence on the dental measurements. However, these subjects could not be excluded because eliminating more severely affected subjects, would have introduced bias. Conclusions Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate highlighted significant differences between UCLP and non-UCLP subjects in mixed dentition phase, suggesting that orthopaedic maxillary expansion is advisable in UCLP.
Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects using digital dental casts
Perillo, Letizia
2017
Abstract
Summary Objectives To assess arch width, palatal surface area, and volume in surgically treated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) in mixed dentition children in comparison with non-cleft lip and palate (NCLP) children using a 3D laser scanning. Materials and Methods 38 subjects (Caucasian origin), 5.63-11.9 years of age (mean, 9.33 ± 1.67 years), were included. 19 in each group (UCLP and NCLP). Digital dental casts were obtained using a 3 Shape R700 laser scanner. Intercanine and intermolar widths (cusp and gingival levels), palatal surface area and volume were measured. An independent sample Student's t-Test and an ANOVA were undertaken with significance level set as P < 0.05. Results Intercanine widths at the cusp (5.60 mm; P < 0.001) and at the gingival level (3.11 mm; P = 0.014), palatal area (141.5 mm 2; P = 0.009) and volume (890.7 mm 3; P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the UCLP compared to the control group. Limitations A smaller part of the subjects was in late mixed dentition phase. To overcome this limitation a matched control group was used. In seven subjects with UCLP, some teeth were missing, which might have had an influence on the dental measurements. However, these subjects could not be excluded because eliminating more severely affected subjects, would have introduced bias. Conclusions Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate highlighted significant differences between UCLP and non-UCLP subjects in mixed dentition phase, suggesting that orthopaedic maxillary expansion is advisable in UCLP.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
