Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices

Background Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PS...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2023-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1359-1365
Hauptverfasser: Garland, Katie, Coyle, Michelle, Foley, Tim, Matic, Damir
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1365
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1359
container_title The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal
container_volume 60
creator Garland, Katie
Coyle, Michelle
Foley, Tim
Matic, Damir
description Background Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period. Methods A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters. Results Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P 
doi_str_mv 10.1177/10556656221106891
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2676556094</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_10556656221106891</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2872129558</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e9b3f4732e073b2d250f5db270b8955f15665fa15476ca63d439c7049bb335913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq2qqNAtD9BLZamXXgL-E9vJEYVCkZBAaKuKU-Q4E9YoiYPtbNWH4J3xarcggTh5NPOb-azvQ-grJUeUKnVMiRBSCskYpUQWJf2ADqjIRUaFLD-mOs2zDbCPPodwTwgTlBWf0D5P80Ll_AA9LmHMbkF7XMG00r0bIHprcOWGSXsb3Ihdh691tDDGgP_YuMJVD11MvV5HwH9XDt-AAbuGFi896DgkcguemJja2PkEh7Aprz1kYfZ31ugeX_m4chO0Se4U1tZA-IL2Ot0HONy9C_T77Oey-pVdXp1fVCeXmeGyiBmUDe9yxRkQxRvWMkE60TZMkaYohejoxpVOJyuUNFryNuelUSQvm4ZzUVK-QD-2dyfvHmYIsR5sMND3egQ3h5pJJZO1pMwT-v0Veu9mP6bf1axQjLIkWCSKbinjXQgeunrydtD-X01JvcmqfpNV2vm2uzw3A7TPG__DScDRFgj6Dl5k37_4BInqm4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2872129558</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Garland, Katie ; Coyle, Michelle ; Foley, Tim ; Matic, Damir</creator><creatorcontrib>Garland, Katie ; Coyle, Michelle ; Foley, Tim ; Matic, Damir</creatorcontrib><description>Background Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period. Methods A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters. Results Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P &lt; .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years. Conclusions Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1055-6656</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-1569</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/10556656221106891</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35698743</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Orthopedic apparatus ; Orthopedics ; Patients ; Surgeons</subject><ispartof>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal, 2023-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1359-1365</ispartof><rights>2022, American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e9b3f4732e073b2d250f5db270b8955f15665fa15476ca63d439c7049bb335913</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e9b3f4732e073b2d250f5db270b8955f15665fa15476ca63d439c7049bb335913</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9069-5683</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10556656221106891$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10556656221106891$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,21800,27905,27906,43602,43603</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35698743$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garland, Katie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coyle, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matic, Damir</creatorcontrib><title>Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices</title><title>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal</title><addtitle>The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal</addtitle><description>Background Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period. Methods A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters. Results Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P &lt; .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years. Conclusions Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.</description><subject>Orthopedic apparatus</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><issn>1055-6656</issn><issn>1545-1569</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQxq2qqNAtD9BLZamXXgL-E9vJEYVCkZBAaKuKU-Q4E9YoiYPtbNWH4J3xarcggTh5NPOb-azvQ-grJUeUKnVMiRBSCskYpUQWJf2ADqjIRUaFLD-mOs2zDbCPPodwTwgTlBWf0D5P80Ll_AA9LmHMbkF7XMG00r0bIHprcOWGSXsb3Ihdh691tDDGgP_YuMJVD11MvV5HwH9XDt-AAbuGFi896DgkcguemJja2PkEh7Aprz1kYfZ31ugeX_m4chO0Se4U1tZA-IL2Ot0HONy9C_T77Oey-pVdXp1fVCeXmeGyiBmUDe9yxRkQxRvWMkE60TZMkaYohejoxpVOJyuUNFryNuelUSQvm4ZzUVK-QD-2dyfvHmYIsR5sMND3egQ3h5pJJZO1pMwT-v0Veu9mP6bf1axQjLIkWCSKbinjXQgeunrydtD-X01JvcmqfpNV2vm2uzw3A7TPG__DScDRFgj6Dl5k37_4BInqm4Q</recordid><startdate>20231101</startdate><enddate>20231101</enddate><creator>Garland, Katie</creator><creator>Coyle, Michelle</creator><creator>Foley, Tim</creator><creator>Matic, Damir</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9069-5683</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231101</creationdate><title>Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices</title><author>Garland, Katie ; Coyle, Michelle ; Foley, Tim ; Matic, Damir</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e9b3f4732e073b2d250f5db270b8955f15665fa15476ca63d439c7049bb335913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Orthopedic apparatus</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garland, Katie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coyle, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foley, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matic, Damir</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</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>Garland, Katie</au><au>Coyle, Michelle</au><au>Foley, Tim</au><au>Matic, Damir</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices</atitle><jtitle>The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal</jtitle><addtitle>The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal</addtitle><date>2023-11-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1359</spage><epage>1365</epage><pages>1359-1365</pages><issn>1055-6656</issn><eissn>1545-1569</eissn><abstract>Background Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period. Methods A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters. Results Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P &lt; .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years. Conclusions Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>35698743</pmid><doi>10.1177/10556656221106891</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9069-5683</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1055-6656
ispartof The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal, 2023-11, Vol.60 (11), p.1359-1365
issn 1055-6656
1545-1569
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2676556094
source SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Orthopedic apparatus
Orthopedics
Patients
Surgeons
title Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T05%3A35%3A06IST&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=Ten-Year%20Cephalometric%20Comparison%20of%20Patients%20With%20Cleft%20Palate%20who%20Received%20Treatment%20With%20Active%20or%20Passive%20Pre-surgical%20Orthopedic%20Devices&rft.jtitle=The%20Cleft%20palate-craniofacial%20journal&rft.au=Garland,%20Katie&rft.date=2023-11-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1359&rft.epage=1365&rft.pages=1359-1365&rft.issn=1055-6656&rft.eissn=1545-1569&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/10556656221106891&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2872129558%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=2872129558&rft_id=info:pmid/35698743&rft_sage_id=10.1177_10556656221106891&rfr_iscdi=true