The effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate

Cindy Hsin Yi Hsieh, Ellen Wen Ching Ko, Philip Kuo Ting Chen, Chiung Shing Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of lip repair of cleft patients is one kind of alveolar repair. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Retrospective study. Patients: Sixty-two consecutive patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip/palate with 5-year-olds' record were included in this retrospective study. Interventions: All the patients had received nasoalveolar molding treatment before cheiloplasty at the age of 3 to 6 months. Twenty-six patients had gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the GPP group. Thirty-six patients did not have gingivoperiosteoplasty at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the non-GPP group. Main Outcome Measures: Cephalometry was used to evaluate the facial growth at 5 years of age in the two groups of patients. Results: Gingivoperiosteoplasty had significant effects on the maxillary position (SNA), intermaxillary position (ANB), maxillary length (PMP-ANS), and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) at the age of 5 years. The SNA and ANB angles were larger in non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 3.0° and 2.6°, respectively. The maxillary length (PMP-ANS) and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) were larger in the non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 2.1 and 2.9 mm, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with UCLP, the sagittal growth of the maxilla would be affectedmore adversely in the GPP group than in the non-GPP group at the age of 5 years.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)439-446
Number of pages8
JournalCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Volume47
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cleft Lip
Cleft Palate
Growth
Retrospective Studies
Cephalometry
Maxilla
Age Groups
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Facial growth
  • Gingivoperiosteoplasty
  • Unilateral cleft lip and palate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

The effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. / Hsieh, Cindy Hsin Yi; Ko, Ellen Wen Ching; Chen, Philip Kuo Ting; Huang, Chiung Shing.

In: Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, 01.09.2010, p. 439-446.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{95d6e0f373c64d60a1c916831df220ea,
title = "The effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate",
abstract = "Objective: Gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of lip repair of cleft patients is one kind of alveolar repair. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Retrospective study. Patients: Sixty-two consecutive patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip/palate with 5-year-olds' record were included in this retrospective study. Interventions: All the patients had received nasoalveolar molding treatment before cheiloplasty at the age of 3 to 6 months. Twenty-six patients had gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the GPP group. Thirty-six patients did not have gingivoperiosteoplasty at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the non-GPP group. Main Outcome Measures: Cephalometry was used to evaluate the facial growth at 5 years of age in the two groups of patients. Results: Gingivoperiosteoplasty had significant effects on the maxillary position (SNA), intermaxillary position (ANB), maxillary length (PMP-ANS), and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) at the age of 5 years. The SNA and ANB angles were larger in non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 3.0° and 2.6°, respectively. The maxillary length (PMP-ANS) and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) were larger in the non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 2.1 and 2.9 mm, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with UCLP, the sagittal growth of the maxilla would be affectedmore adversely in the GPP group than in the non-GPP group at the age of 5 years.",
keywords = "Facial growth, Gingivoperiosteoplasty, Unilateral cleft lip and palate",
author = "Hsieh, {Cindy Hsin Yi} and Ko, {Ellen Wen Ching} and Chen, {Philip Kuo Ting} and Huang, {Chiung Shing}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1597/08-207",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "439--446",
journal = "Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal",
issn = "1055-6656",
publisher = "American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate

AU - Hsieh, Cindy Hsin Yi

AU - Ko, Ellen Wen Ching

AU - Chen, Philip Kuo Ting

AU - Huang, Chiung Shing

PY - 2010/9/1

Y1 - 2010/9/1

N2 - Objective: Gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of lip repair of cleft patients is one kind of alveolar repair. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Retrospective study. Patients: Sixty-two consecutive patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip/palate with 5-year-olds' record were included in this retrospective study. Interventions: All the patients had received nasoalveolar molding treatment before cheiloplasty at the age of 3 to 6 months. Twenty-six patients had gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the GPP group. Thirty-six patients did not have gingivoperiosteoplasty at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the non-GPP group. Main Outcome Measures: Cephalometry was used to evaluate the facial growth at 5 years of age in the two groups of patients. Results: Gingivoperiosteoplasty had significant effects on the maxillary position (SNA), intermaxillary position (ANB), maxillary length (PMP-ANS), and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) at the age of 5 years. The SNA and ANB angles were larger in non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 3.0° and 2.6°, respectively. The maxillary length (PMP-ANS) and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) were larger in the non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 2.1 and 2.9 mm, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with UCLP, the sagittal growth of the maxilla would be affectedmore adversely in the GPP group than in the non-GPP group at the age of 5 years.

AB - Objective: Gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of lip repair of cleft patients is one kind of alveolar repair. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Retrospective study. Patients: Sixty-two consecutive patients with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip/palate with 5-year-olds' record were included in this retrospective study. Interventions: All the patients had received nasoalveolar molding treatment before cheiloplasty at the age of 3 to 6 months. Twenty-six patients had gingivoperiosteoplasty performed at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the GPP group. Thirty-six patients did not have gingivoperiosteoplasty at the time of cheiloplasty and function as the non-GPP group. Main Outcome Measures: Cephalometry was used to evaluate the facial growth at 5 years of age in the two groups of patients. Results: Gingivoperiosteoplasty had significant effects on the maxillary position (SNA), intermaxillary position (ANB), maxillary length (PMP-ANS), and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) at the age of 5 years. The SNA and ANB angles were larger in non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 3.0° and 2.6°, respectively. The maxillary length (PMP-ANS) and maxillary alveolar length (PMP-A) were larger in the non-GPP group than in the GPP group by 2.1 and 2.9 mm, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with UCLP, the sagittal growth of the maxilla would be affectedmore adversely in the GPP group than in the non-GPP group at the age of 5 years.

KW - Facial growth

KW - Gingivoperiosteoplasty

KW - Unilateral cleft lip and palate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956588614&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956588614&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1597/08-207

DO - 10.1597/08-207

M3 - Article

C2 - 20180706

AN - SCOPUS:77956588614

VL - 47

SP - 439

EP - 446

JO - Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

JF - Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

SN - 1055-6656

IS - 5

ER -