Objectives: We report our experience and the protocol we used in managing maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. Patients and methods: 14 adult cleft lip and palate patients with maxillary hypoplasia w...Objectives: We report our experience and the protocol we used in managing maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. Patients and methods: 14 adult cleft lip and palate patients with maxillary hypoplasia were evaluated clinically. Dental models and radiographs including (lateral cephalograms and orthopantographs) were obtained at the initial visit and upon completion of the presurgical orthodontic treatment. Patients with occlusal discrepancies larger than 6 mm and severe palatal scaring underwent Distraction osteogenesis (DO) to advance the maxilla. Patients with an occlusal discrepancy of 6 mm or less, underwent traditional orthognathic surgery including le fort I advancement and Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to seat the mandible in occlusion. Results: Five patients underwent orthognathic surgery. Two of them underwent double jaw surgery. Three underwent single jaw conventional le fort l advancement. Four patients required bone grafting to repair the residual alveolar defect and to augment the midface deficiency. Nine patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia underwent maxillary advancement using distraction osteogenesis. Conclusion: Patients with a severe maxillary hypoplasia of 6 mm or more and excessive palatal scaring are successfully treated with DO. Conventional le fort I is reserved for patients with less severe maxillary hypoplasia. Both techniques gave promising results providing having followed the proper selection criteria.展开更多
文摘Objectives: We report our experience and the protocol we used in managing maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate patients. Patients and methods: 14 adult cleft lip and palate patients with maxillary hypoplasia were evaluated clinically. Dental models and radiographs including (lateral cephalograms and orthopantographs) were obtained at the initial visit and upon completion of the presurgical orthodontic treatment. Patients with occlusal discrepancies larger than 6 mm and severe palatal scaring underwent Distraction osteogenesis (DO) to advance the maxilla. Patients with an occlusal discrepancy of 6 mm or less, underwent traditional orthognathic surgery including le fort I advancement and Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) to seat the mandible in occlusion. Results: Five patients underwent orthognathic surgery. Two of them underwent double jaw surgery. Three underwent single jaw conventional le fort l advancement. Four patients required bone grafting to repair the residual alveolar defect and to augment the midface deficiency. Nine patients with severe maxillary hypoplasia underwent maxillary advancement using distraction osteogenesis. Conclusion: Patients with a severe maxillary hypoplasia of 6 mm or more and excessive palatal scaring are successfully treated with DO. Conventional le fort I is reserved for patients with less severe maxillary hypoplasia. Both techniques gave promising results providing having followed the proper selection criteria.
