umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Outcomes of Maxillary Orthognathic Surgery in Patientswith Cleft Lip and Palate: A Literature Review
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Odontology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Odontology.
2019 (English)In: Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery (Print), ISSN 0278-2391, E-ISSN 1531-5053, Vol. 18, no 4, p. 500-508Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019. Vol. 18, no 4, p. 500-508
Keywords [en]
Cleft lip and palate, Le Fort, osteotomy, Distraction osteogenesis, Conventional orthognathic surgery, Review
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-159668DOI: 10.1007/s12663-019-01217-wISI: 000490603500003PubMedID: 31624427OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-159668DiVA, id: diva2:1319708
Available from: 2019-06-03 Created: 2019-06-03 Last updated: 2019-11-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(500 kB)16 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 500 kBChecksum SHA-512
3f1feb5767dc4c7283327aebc14d8c97f51b2e7c9cfb45282a67419907fd31e45494aab076d327be77073482cc29451569db186115bed3f0e62a7647f049d5bc
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Sjöström, MatsGanoo, Tulika

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sjöström, MatsGanoo, Tulika
By organisation
Department of Odontology
In the same journal
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery (Print)
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 126 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 299 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf