ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Occlusal and Cephalometric Outcomes of Cleft Orthognathic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAberrant facial growth in individuals affected by orofacial clefts can result in maxillary retrusion and class III malocclusion, with a proportion requiring surgical correction at cessation of growth. This study aimed to evaluate occlusal and cephalometric outcomes of combined orthodontic-orthognathic treatment. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospective cohort study in a United Kingdom cleft center. Participants included twenty-seven patients (20 males, 7 females) with cleft (n = 16 UCLP :7 BCLP :4 ICP) who consecutively underwent combined surgical treatment for Class III malocclusion between January 2013 and December 2017. Records were collected pre-treatment (T0), pre-surgery (T1) and at debond (T2). Models were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed. Outcomes were assessed by an independent rater.
resultsMean age at surgery was 21.4 years (SD 4.9). Le Fort 1 advancement (mean 6.1 mm, SD 4.0) was performed in all cases. Additional procedures included mandibular setback (n = 2), cortico-cancellous bone grafting (n = 6) and genioplasty (n = 1). Mean T0 PAR score was 44.8 (SD 11.7), reducing to 3.6 (SD 2.0) at T2, indicating a mean % PAR score reduction of 91.6% (SD 4.7). Class III skeletal profiles improved from a mean T0 ANB of -2.1º (SD 2.2), to 2.8º (SD 1.6) at T2. Mean T0 overjet was -3.3 mm (SD 2.3), increasing to 2.6 mm (SD 1.3) at T2.
conclusionCleft orthognathic surgery differs in complexity and approach to routine orthognathics, however, these results demonstrate that occlusal outcomes can still be comparable with non-cleft populations. Outcome data can be used for comparison with other centers providing cleft orthognathic treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.