Advertisement

Odontology

, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp 445–453 | Cite as

Relapse after Le Fort I surgery in oral cleft patients: a 2-year follow-up using digitized and 3D models

  • Willian Saranholi da Silva
  • Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida
  • Maria Giulia Rezende Pucciarelli
  • Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek
  • Juliana Dreyer da Silva de Menezes
  • Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú
  • Thais Marchini Oliveira
  • Flavia M. R. N. Cintra
  • Simone SoaresEmail author
Original Article
  • 197 Downloads

Abstract

This retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate and identify the relapse rate after orthognathic surgery for maxillary advancement (Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy) in oral cleft patients through digitized cephalograms and 3D dental models, following 2 years. Lateral cephalograms and dental casts of 17 individuals, enrolled in Orthodontics Department in Hospital of Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, were carried out. The digital cephalometric tracings were evaluated in: T1—before surgery, T2—immediate after surgery, T3—6-month to 1-year after surgery. The dental study casts were digitized and evaluated in: F1—before surgery; F2—3-month to 1-year after surgery; F3—1 to 2 years after surgery. The analyses of the dental arches were performed directly on the scanned images. A single examiner previously trained and calibrated performed all the assessments. Repeated measures ANOVA was applied to study the variables and compare the periods, followed by Tukey test to evaluate the statistically significant differences, with level of significance of 5%. The digital cephalogram results showed that the vertical movement statistically differed from T2 to T3 (p = 0.002). The right and left premolar relationship in digitized models revealed that at F2 the individuals exhibited ¼ Class II and Class I, in 29.4 and 23.5% of the cases, respectively; and at F3, Class I, 58.8 and 70.6% of the cases, respectively. The cephalometry showed the relapse in the vertical movement after orthognathic surgery for maxillary advancement, but no relapse in the other evaluated parameters.

Keywords

Cephalometry Growth and development Le Fort osteotomy Orthognathic surgery Relapse 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Panamonta V, Pradubwong S, Panamonta M, Chowchuen B. global birth prevalence of orofacial clefts: a systematic review. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(Suppl 7):S11–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diah E, Lo LJ, Huang CS, Sudjatmiko G, Susanto I, Chen YR. Maxillary growth of adult patients with unoperated cleft: answers to the debates. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Sur. 2007;60(4):407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolford LM, Cottrell DA, Karras SC. Orthognathic surgery in the Young cleft patients: preliminary study on subsequent facial growth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:2524–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paulus C. Orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip and palate. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale. 2014;115(4):239–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lannetti G, Cascone P, Saltarel A, Ettaro G. Le Fort I in cleft patients: 20 years’ experience. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15:662–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thongdee P, Samman N. Stability of maxillary surgical movement in unilateral cleft lip and palate with preceding alveolar bone grafting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42:664–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scolozzi P. Distraction osteogenesis in the management of severe maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19:1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saltaji H, Major MP, Alfakir H, Al-Saleb MAQ, Flores-Mir C. Maxillary advancement with conventional orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate: is it a stable technique? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:2859–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bailey LJ, Cevidanes LH, Proffit WR. Stability and predictability of orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126:273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomes KU, Martins WDB, Ribas MO. Horizontal and vertical maxillary osteotomy stability, in cleft lip and palate patients, using allogenic bone graft. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;5:84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumari P, Roy SK, Roy ID, Kumar P, Datana S, Rahman S. Stability of cleft maxilla in Le Fort I maxillary advancement. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2013;3:139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yun YS, Uhm KI, Kim JN, Shin DH, Choi HG, Kim SH, Kim CK, Jo DI. Bone and soft tissue changes after two-jaw surgery in cleft patients. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42:419–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wutzl A, Sinko K, Shengelia N, Brozek W, Watzinger F, Schicho K, Ewers R. Examination of dental casts in newborns with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(10):1025–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142(3):308–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asquith J, McIntyre G. Dental arch relationships on three-dimensional digital study models and conventional plaster study models for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(5):530–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwartz S, Kapala JT, Rajchgot H, Roberts GL. Accurate and systematic numerical recording system for the identification of various types of lip and maxillary clefts (RPL system). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:330–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garrison BT, Lapp TH, Bussard DA. The stability of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomies in patients with simultaneous alveolar cleft bone grafts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;45(9):761–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Louis PJ, Waite PD, Austin RB. Long-term skeletal stability after rigid fixation of Le Fort I osteotomies with advancements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;22(2):82–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris EF, Vaden JL. Posttreatment stability in adult and adolescent orthodontic patients: a cast analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1994;9(1):19–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heliovaara A, Ranta R, Hukki J, Rintala A. Skeletal stability of Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with isolated cleft palate and bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;31:358–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ayliffe PR, Banks P, Martin IC. Stability of the Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;24:201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong FX, Heggie AA, Shand JM, et al. Skeletal stability of maxillary advancement with and without a mandibular reduction in the cleft lip and palate patient. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(12):1501–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.08.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watts GD, Antonarakis GS, Forrest CR, Tompson BD, Phillips JH. Is Linear advancement related to relapse in unilateral cleft lip and palate orthognathic surgery? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):717–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoffman GR, Brennan PA. The skeletal stability of one-piece Le Fort I osteotomy to advance the maxilla: Part 2. The influence of uncontrollable clinical variables. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;42:226–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soehardi A, Meijer GJ, Hoppenreijs TJ, Brouns JJ, de Koning M, Stoelinga PJ. Stability, complications, implant survival, and patient satisfaction after Le Fort I osteotomy and interposed bone grafts: follow-up of 5–18 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(1):97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bhatia S, Bocca A, Jones J, et al. Le Fort I advancement osteotomies of 1 cm or more. How safe or stable? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54(3):346–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.09.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watts GD, Antonarakis GS, Forrest CR, et al. Single versus segmental maxillary osteotomies and long-term stability in unilateral cleft lip and palate related malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(12):2514–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.07.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stork JT, Kim RH, Regennitter FJ, et al. Maxillary quadrangular Le Fort I osteotomy: long-term skeletal stability and clinical outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42(12):1533–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.05.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karabekmez FE, Keller EE, Stork JT, et al. A long-term clinical and cephalometric study of cleft lip and palate patients following intraoral maxillary quadrangular le fort I osteotomy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(3):311–26.  https://doi.org/10.1597/13-095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis TJ, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136:16e1-4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Willian Saranholi da Silva
    • 1
  • Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida
    • 2
  • Maria Giulia Rezende Pucciarelli
    • 1
  • Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek
    • 3
  • Juliana Dreyer da Silva de Menezes
    • 1
  • Renato Yassutaka Faria Yaedú
    • 4
  • Thais Marchini Oliveira
    • 5
  • Flavia M. R. N. Cintra
    • 1
  • Simone Soares
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Bauru School of Dentistry, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Bauru School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Stomatology, Pathology and Radiology, Bauru School of Dentistry, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  5. 5.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil

Personalised recommendations