Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft
Objective To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study. Patients Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluate...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2014-01, Vol.51 (1), p.70-75 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 75 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 70 |
| container_title | The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal |
| container_volume | 51 |
| creator | Dogan, Servet Semb, Gunvor Erbay, Elif Alcan, Toros Uzel, Ash Kocadereli, Ilken Shaw, William C. |
| description | Objective
To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study.
Patients
Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8–11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990.
Methods
The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.
Results
The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P < .01, P < .001, respectively).
Conclusions
This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1597/11-304R1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1490750270</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1597_11-304R1</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3193326401</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-d6022eed6d7465eb501e0d5ae5db36fea01efcaba9f1918ce8f61f04713936453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkVFrFDEQx4NYbK2Cn0ACIviydSabZC--nWe1woFS2ucluzvrpe4l22SX4ufwC5u7q1X6lMnMb34J_Bl7hXCGylTvEYsS5CU-YSeopCpQafM016BUobXSx-x5SjcAQqFYPGPHQiyk0RJO2O9P5Cc78GVsN_ySBju54NPGjYk7z6_m-NOlDf-e25lL_M5NG74K23Ggifi1d3mBYt5fDdRPfO1Gbn2X-V2ffwzR84amOyLP0VR6P0Rj4ANf7jU2uhT8QXs-x9DuNC_YUW-HRC_vz1N2_fn8anVRrL99-bparou2lDgVnQYhiDrdVVIrahQgQacsqa4pdU823_vWNtb0aHDR0qLX2IOssDSllqo8Ze8O3jGG25nSVG9damkYrKcwpxqlgUqBqCCjbx6hN2GOPv9uRwkBCGX1T9jGkFKkvh6j29r4q0aod0HViPU-qIy-vhfOzZa6B_BvMhl4ewCS_UH_vfZY9AcIdpfi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1492201037</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Dogan, Servet ; Semb, Gunvor ; Erbay, Elif ; Alcan, Toros ; Uzel, Ash ; Kocadereli, Ilken ; Shaw, William C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dogan, Servet ; Semb, Gunvor ; Erbay, Elif ; Alcan, Toros ; Uzel, Ash ; Kocadereli, Ilken ; Shaw, William C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study.
Patients
Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8–11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990.
Methods
The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.
Results
The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P < .01, P < .001, respectively).
Conclusions
This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1055-6656</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-1569</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1597/11-304R1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22849640</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CPJOEG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Birth defects ; Child ; Cleft Lip - surgery ; Cleft Palate - surgery ; Comparative studies ; Dental Arch - abnormalities ; Dental research ; Dentistry ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Maxillofacial surgery ; Models, Anatomic ; Mouth ; Turkey</subject><ispartof>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal, 2014-01, Vol.51 (1), p.70-75</ispartof><rights>2014 American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. All rights reserved</rights><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services Jan 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-d6022eed6d7465eb501e0d5ae5db36fea01efcaba9f1918ce8f61f04713936453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-d6022eed6d7465eb501e0d5ae5db36fea01efcaba9f1918ce8f61f04713936453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1597/11-304R1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1597/11-304R1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22849640$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dogan, Servet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Semb, Gunvor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erbay, Elif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alcan, Toros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzel, Ash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kocadereli, Ilken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, William C.</creatorcontrib><title>Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft</title><title>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal</title><addtitle>Cleft Palate Craniofac J</addtitle><description>Objective
To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study.
Patients
Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8–11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990.
Methods
The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.
Results
The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P < .01, P < .001, respectively).
Conclusions
This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.</description><subject>Birth defects</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cleft Lip - surgery</subject><subject>Cleft Palate - surgery</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Dental Arch - abnormalities</subject><subject>Dental research</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery</subject><subject>Models, Anatomic</subject><subject>Mouth</subject><subject>Turkey</subject><issn>1055-6656</issn><issn>1545-1569</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkVFrFDEQx4NYbK2Cn0ACIviydSabZC--nWe1woFS2ucluzvrpe4l22SX4ufwC5u7q1X6lMnMb34J_Bl7hXCGylTvEYsS5CU-YSeopCpQafM016BUobXSx-x5SjcAQqFYPGPHQiyk0RJO2O9P5Cc78GVsN_ySBju54NPGjYk7z6_m-NOlDf-e25lL_M5NG74K23Ggifi1d3mBYt5fDdRPfO1Gbn2X-V2ffwzR84amOyLP0VR6P0Rj4ANf7jU2uhT8QXs-x9DuNC_YUW-HRC_vz1N2_fn8anVRrL99-bparou2lDgVnQYhiDrdVVIrahQgQacsqa4pdU823_vWNtb0aHDR0qLX2IOssDSllqo8Ze8O3jGG25nSVG9damkYrKcwpxqlgUqBqCCjbx6hN2GOPv9uRwkBCGX1T9jGkFKkvh6j29r4q0aod0HViPU-qIy-vhfOzZa6B_BvMhl4ewCS_UH_vfZY9AcIdpfi</recordid><startdate>201401</startdate><enddate>201401</enddate><creator>Dogan, Servet</creator><creator>Semb, Gunvor</creator><creator>Erbay, Elif</creator><creator>Alcan, Toros</creator><creator>Uzel, Ash</creator><creator>Kocadereli, Ilken</creator><creator>Shaw, William C.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201401</creationdate><title>Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft</title><author>Dogan, Servet ; Semb, Gunvor ; Erbay, Elif ; Alcan, Toros ; Uzel, Ash ; Kocadereli, Ilken ; Shaw, William C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-d6022eed6d7465eb501e0d5ae5db36fea01efcaba9f1918ce8f61f04713936453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Birth defects</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cleft Lip - surgery</topic><topic>Cleft Palate - surgery</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Dental Arch - abnormalities</topic><topic>Dental research</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery</topic><topic>Models, Anatomic</topic><topic>Mouth</topic><topic>Turkey</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dogan, Servet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Semb, Gunvor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erbay, Elif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alcan, Toros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzel, Ash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kocadereli, Ilken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, William C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dogan, Servet</au><au>Semb, Gunvor</au><au>Erbay, Elif</au><au>Alcan, Toros</au><au>Uzel, Ash</au><au>Kocadereli, Ilken</au><au>Shaw, William C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft</atitle><jtitle>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal</jtitle><addtitle>Cleft Palate Craniofac J</addtitle><date>2014-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>70</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>70-75</pages><issn>1055-6656</issn><eissn>1545-1569</eissn><coden>CPJOEG</coden><abstract>Objective
To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study.
Patients
Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8–11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990.
Methods
The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.
Results
The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P < .001, P < .001, and P < .05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P < .01, P < .001, respectively).
Conclusions
This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22849640</pmid><doi>10.1597/11-304R1</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1055-6656 |
| ispartof | The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal, 2014-01, Vol.51 (1), p.70-75 |
| issn | 1055-6656 1545-1569 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1490750270 |
| source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Birth defects Child Cleft Lip - surgery Cleft Palate - surgery Comparative studies Dental Arch - abnormalities Dental research Dentistry Female Humans Male Maxillofacial surgery Models, Anatomic Mouth Turkey |
| title | Dental Arch Relationships in Turkish Patients with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Born between 1976 and 1990: A Comparison with Eurocleft |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T05%3A16%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dental%20Arch%20Relationships%20in%20Turkish%20Patients%20with%20Complete%20Unilateral%20Cleft%20Lip%20and%20Palate%20Born%20between%201976%20and%201990:%20A%20Comparison%20with%20Eurocleft&rft.jtitle=The%20Cleft%20palate-craniofacial%20journal&rft.au=Dogan,%20Servet&rft.date=2014-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=70&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=70-75&rft.issn=1055-6656&rft.eissn=1545-1569&rft.coden=CPJOEG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1597/11-304R1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3193326401%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1492201037&rft_id=info:pmid/22849640&rft_sage_id=10.1597_11-304R1&rfr_iscdi=true |