Advertisement

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 500–508 | Cite as

Outcomes of Maxillary Orthognathic Surgery in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Literature Review

  • Tulika GanooEmail author
  • Mats Sjöström
Review Paper
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients often require orthognathic surgical correction due to maxillary hypoplasia secondary to primary surgeries, through either distraction osteogenesis (DO) or conventional orthognathic surgery (CO). The objective was to evaluate both surgical techniques regarding functional, aesthetics and quality-of-life and stability outcomes for the patient.

Materials and Method

The PubMed database was searched with the inclusion criteria: studies in English detailing maxillary orthognathic surgery on non-syndromic patients with CLP. Clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reviews, randomized control trials were included. Studies with less than five patients and studies reporting bimaxillary surgery were excluded. References lists of these studies were consulted for more studies to be included. Studies were then evaluated for relevance, quality checked for risk of bias and divided based on the results studied. In total, 22 studies published between 1997 and 2017 were included.

Results

Most studies had low levels of bias. The evidence to support one surgical technique before the other was low. DO offered better stability. No clear evidence exists on which technique had the best aesthetic results and functional improvement. DO may cause higher levels of anxiety and distress in patients compared to CO.

Conclusion

Regarding all outcomes studied, the scrutinized literature did not allow for the recommendation of one specific technique. Future multicentre collaboration may enable greater sample size and better statistical comparison of results of both techniques.

Keywords

Cleft lip and palate Le Fort I osteotomy Distraction osteogenesis Conventional orthognathic surgery Review 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Moore UJ (2011) Principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 6th edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beumer J III, Marunick MT, Esposito SJ (2011) Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical management of cancer-related, acquired, and congenital defects of the head and neck, 3rd edn. Quintessence Pub, Hanover ParkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taib BG, Taib AG, Swift AC et al (2015) Cleft lip and palate: diagnosis and management. Br J Hosp Med Lond Engl 76:584–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shprintzen RJ, Bardach J (1995) Cleft palate speech management a multidisciplinary approach, 1st edn. Mosby, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hupp JR, Tucker MR, Ellis E III et al (2014) Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery, 6th edn. Mosby, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah A, Danahey D (2016) Distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla treatment & management. Medscape. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/844742-treatment Accessed 9 Feb 2018
  7. 7.
    Yu H, Wang X, Fang B et al (2012) Comparative study of different osteotomy modalities in maxillary distraction osteogenesis for cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:2641–2647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Defrancq J Orthognathic classification—facial balance. Dr Joel Defrancq Join. Worlds Funct. Aesthet. https://www.facialsculptureclinic.com/en/surgery/orthognathic-classification/facial-balance/. Accessed 9 Feb 2018
  9. 9.
    Molina F, Monasterio FO, de la Paz Aguilar M et al (1998) Maxillary distraction: aesthetic and functional benefits in cleft lip-palate and prognathic patients during mixed dentition. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:951–963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rachmiel A, Aizenbud D, Ardekian L et al (1999) Surgically-assisted orthopedic protraction of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28:9–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ko EWC, Figueroa AA, Polley JW (2000) Soft tissue profile changes after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis by use of a rigid external distraction device: a 1-year follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:959–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polley JW, Figueroa AA (1998) Rigid external distraction: its application in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(5):1360–1372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueroa AA, Polley JW (1999) Management of severe cleft maxillary deficiency with distraction osteogenesis: procedure and results. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop Off Publ Am Assoc Orthod Its Const Soc Am Board Orthod 115:1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chua HDP, Cheung LK (2012) Soft tissue changes from maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate–a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:1648–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheung LK, Chua HDPP (2006) A meta-analysis of cleft maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 35:14–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baek S-H, Lee J-K, Lee J-H et al (2007) Comparison of treatment outcome and stability between distraction osteogenesis and LeFort I osteotomy in cleft patients with maxillary hypoplasia. J Craniofac Surg 18:1209–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCance AM, Moss JP, Fright WR et al (1997) Three-dimensional analysis techniques–Part 4: three-dimensional analysis of bone and soft tissue to bone ratio of movements in 24 cleft palate patients following Le Fort I osteotomy: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 34:58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Figueroa AA, Polley JW, Friede H et al (2004) Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction device in cleft maxillary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1382–1392 discussion 1393-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gürsoy S, Hukki J, Hurmerinta K (2010) Five-year follow-up of maxillary distraction osteogenesis on the dentofacial structures of children with cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:744–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daimaruya T, Imai Y, Kochi S et al (2010) Midfacial changes through distraction osteogenesis using a rigid external distraction system with retention plates in cleft lip and palate patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:1480–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hettinger PC, Hanson PR, Denny AD (2014) Le Fort III distraction using rotation advancement of the midface in patients with cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:165e–166eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheung LK, Loh JSP, Ho SMY (2006) The early psychological adjustment of cleft patients after maxillary distraction osteogenesis and conventional orthognathic surgery: a preliminary study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1743–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chua HDP, Ho SMY, Cheung LK (2012) The comparison of psychological adjustment of patients with cleft lip and palate after maxillary distraction osteogenesis and conventional orthognathic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heliövaara A, Ranta R, Hukki J et al (2002) Cephalometric pharyngeal changes after Le Fort I osteotomy in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Acta Odontol Scand 60:141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guyette TW, Polley JW, Figueroa A et al (2001) Changes in speech following maxillary distraction osteogenesis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 38:199–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chanchareonsook N, Samman N, Whitehill TL (2006) The effect of cranio-maxillofacial osteotomies and distraction osteogenesis on speech and velopharyngeal status: a critical review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 43:477–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pereira V, Sell D, Tuomainen J (2013) The impact of maxillary osteotomy on speech outcomes in cleft lip and palate: an evidence-based approach to evaluating the literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 50:25–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hirano A, Suzuki H (2001) Factors related to relapse after Le Fort I maxillary advancement osteotomy in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 38:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al-Waheidi EM, Harradine NW (1998) Soft tissue profile changes in patients with cleft lip and palate following maxillary osteotomies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 35:535–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heliovaara A, Hukki J, Ranta R et al (2001) Changes in soft tissue thickness after Le Fort I osteotomy in different cleft types. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 16:207–213PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Odontology/Faculty of MedicineUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations