Aim: Maxillary dental arch widths were evaluated in individuals having unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) cleft lip and palate (CLP) using three-dimensional (3D) digital models. Material and Method: The study had ...Aim: Maxillary dental arch widths were evaluated in individuals having unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) cleft lip and palate (CLP) using three-dimensional (3D) digital models. Material and Method: The study had been conducted on 80 individuals aged between 14 - 17 years having UCLP and BCLP. 40 of the individuals had UCLP, whereas 40 had BCLP. The maxillary dental models taken from patients before the treatment were scanned using Orthomodel Programme (v.1.01, Orthomodel Inc., Istanbul, Turkey) to obtain 3D imagery. Student’s t-test was used in order to assess the data obtained by using SPSS software version 22.0. Results: In BCLP, the average inter-canine distance was 17.44 ± 1.31 mm, the average inter-molar distance was 36.57 ± 1.12 mm, while inter-canine/inter-molar ratio was 0.47. Whereas in UCLP, it was 25.10 ± 0.63 mm, 42.20 ± 0.53 mm and 0.59. The inter-canine distance in UCLP was found to be large enough to be statistically significant (p 0.05), even though there were differences in inter-molar widths. Conclusion: For the stable orthodontic treatment results, one of the most important points is arch form and widths to be coherent with each other. In our study, the increase of inter-canine distance seen in UCLP indicates that in the cleft region, the maxillary arch is inclined over to the back, while the same situation in BCLP suggests that the maxillary segments are collapsed inside. The difference in the arch is highly affected by the primary surgical treatment.展开更多
文摘Aim: Maxillary dental arch widths were evaluated in individuals having unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) cleft lip and palate (CLP) using three-dimensional (3D) digital models. Material and Method: The study had been conducted on 80 individuals aged between 14 - 17 years having UCLP and BCLP. 40 of the individuals had UCLP, whereas 40 had BCLP. The maxillary dental models taken from patients before the treatment were scanned using Orthomodel Programme (v.1.01, Orthomodel Inc., Istanbul, Turkey) to obtain 3D imagery. Student’s t-test was used in order to assess the data obtained by using SPSS software version 22.0. Results: In BCLP, the average inter-canine distance was 17.44 ± 1.31 mm, the average inter-molar distance was 36.57 ± 1.12 mm, while inter-canine/inter-molar ratio was 0.47. Whereas in UCLP, it was 25.10 ± 0.63 mm, 42.20 ± 0.53 mm and 0.59. The inter-canine distance in UCLP was found to be large enough to be statistically significant (p 0.05), even though there were differences in inter-molar widths. Conclusion: For the stable orthodontic treatment results, one of the most important points is arch form and widths to be coherent with each other. In our study, the increase of inter-canine distance seen in UCLP indicates that in the cleft region, the maxillary arch is inclined over to the back, while the same situation in BCLP suggests that the maxillary segments are collapsed inside. The difference in the arch is highly affected by the primary surgical treatment.
