Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11-19

Premaxillary characteristics in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate: A predictor for treatment outcome

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Marwa Abdelwahab El Kassaby
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ain Shams University, Faculty of Dentistry, Abbaseya Square (11516), Cairo
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.110064

PMID: 23662253

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aim of the current study was to investigate how bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) cases responded differently to presurgical orthopedics (PSO) and primary lip repair (LR) based on premaxillary characteristics. We suggest a clinically oriented descriptive classification for BCLP based on premaxillary characteristics. Design and Setting: A retrospective longitudinal comparative study where available records of all non-syndromic patients with complete BCLP attending the Cleft Clinic, affiliated to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt were assessed. Sample Population and Methodology: Twenty-two cases were collected over a 4-years period from 2008 to 2011 (15 boys and 7 girls). Model assessment was performed for serial models representing four stages of treatment; M1: Prior to start of PSO, M2: At the end of PSO, M3: One month after LR, M4: Three months after LR. The premaxillary and vomerine widths were measured on M1. Models (M1-M4) were assessed for changes in anteroposterior projection, anterior arch width, intercanine width and posterior arch width and results were statistically analyzed. Intra-and postoperative surgical findings during and after primary LR were recorded. The sample was divided into two groups based on the premaxillary size and characteristics; Group R: Rudimentary premaxilla and Group P: Prominent premaxilla. Results: There was a highly significant difference in premaxillary width between the two groups ( P = 0.00), changes in anteroposterior projection of the premaxilla were significant one and three months after LR. Changes in maxillary anterior arch width, intercanine and posterior arch widths were non-significant between groups. Mean age difference between the two groups was only statistically significant at the stage of LR. Surgical differences were noted between the two groups. Postoperatively as compared to group R; group P showed more premaxillary bulge and show at rest, as well as more prolabial stretching. In addition, facial profile was more convex in group P. Conclusion: The two types of BCLP outlined in this study are different from several aspects, and hence management should be modified according to each case. This descriptive classification provides a useful tool for evaluation and planning of patients with BCLP.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded858    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 10    

Recommend this journal