Orthognathic Surgery in the Young Cleft Patient: Preliminary Study on Subsequent Facial Growth
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Data
2008-12-01
Autores
Wolford, Larry M.
Cassano, Daniel Serra [UNESP]
Cottrell, David A.
El Deeb, Mohamed
Karras, Spiro C.
Gonçalves, João Roberto [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Resumo
Purpose: This study evaluated the long-term effects of orthognathic surgery on subsequent growth of the maxillomandibular complex in the young cleft patient. Patients and Methods: We evaluated 12 young cleft patients (9 male and 3 female patients), with a mean age of 12 years 6 months (range, 9 years 8 months to 15 years 4 months), who underwent Le Fort I osteotomies, with maxillary advancement, expansion, and/or downgrafting, by use of autogenous bone or hydroxyapatite grafts, when indicated, for maxillary stabilization. Five patients had concomitant osteotomies of the mandibular ramus. All patients had presurgical and postsurgical orthodontic treatment to control the occlusion. Radiographs taken at initial evaluation (T1) and presurgery (T2) were compared to establish the facial growth vector before surgery, whereas radiographs taken immediately postsurgery (T3) and at longest follow-up (T4) were used to determine postsurgical growth. Each patient's lateral cephalograms were traced, and 16 landmarks were identified and used to compute 11 measurements describing presurgical and postsurgical growth. Results: Before surgery, all patients had relatively normal growth. After surgery, cephalograms showed statistically significant growth changes from T3 to T4, with the maxillary depth decreasing by -3.3° ± 1.8°, Sella-nasion-point A by -3.3° ± 1.8°, and point A-nasion-point B by -3.6° ± 2.8°. The angulation of the maxillary incisors increased by 9.2° ± 11.7°. Of 12 patients, 11 showed disproportionate postsurgical jaw growth. Maxillary growth occurred predominantly in a vertical vector with no anteroposterior growth, even though most patients had shown anteroposterior growth before surgery. The distance increased in the linear measurement from nasion to gnathion by 10.3 ± 7.9 mm. Four of 5 patients operated on during the mixed dentition phase had teeth that erupted through the cleft area. A variable impairment of postoperative growth was seen with the 2 types of grafting material used. No significant difference was noted in the effect on growth in patients with unilateral clefts versus those with bilateral clefts. The presence of a pharyngeal flap was noted to adversely affect growth, whereas simultaneous mandibular surgery did not. After surgery, 11 of 12 patients tended toward a Class III end-on occlusal relation. Conclusions: Orthognathic surgery may be performed on growing cleft patients when mandated by psychological and/or functional concerns. The surgeon must be cognizant of the adverse postsurgical growth outcomes when performing orthognathic surgery on growing cleft patients with the possibility for further surgery requirements. Performing maxillary osteotomies on cleft patients would be more predictable after completion of facial growth. © 2008 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
adolescent, autograft, bone radiography, cephalometry, cleft palate, clinical article, clinical study, controlled study, face growth, female, follow up, human, long term care, male, maxilla osteotomy, medical instrumentation, orthognathic surgery, postoperative period, school child, Adolescent, Bone Substitutes, Bone Transplantation, Cephalometry, Child, Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Female, Humans, Male, Malocclusion, Maxilla, Maxillofacial Development, Oral Fistula, Orthodontics, Corrective, Osteotomy, Le Fort, Retrospective Studies, Tooth Eruption
Como citar
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, v. 66, n. 12, p. 2524-2536, 2008.