Adriano Porto Peixoto, Felicia Miranda, Rayane de Oliveira Pinto, Tiago Turri de Castro Ribeiro, Franciele Salazar Somensi Lara, Fabrício Monteiro de Castro Machado, Daniela Garib
{"title":"0-5 个月双侧唇腭裂患者的上颌腭弓尺寸。","authors":"Adriano Porto Peixoto, Felicia Miranda, Rayane de Oliveira Pinto, Tiago Turri de Castro Ribeiro, Franciele Salazar Somensi Lara, Fabrício Monteiro de Castro Machado, Daniela Garib","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) divides the maxillary arch into three segments, separated from each other, resulting in abnormal growth of the alveolar arch. This study evaluated the maxillary arch dimensions in BCLP and compared them with neonates without craniofacial anomalies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cleft centre. Sixty-six neonates aged 0–5 months were divided into two groups: cleft group—children with BCLP (23 boys and 18 girls) and control group—children without craniofacial deformities (15 boys and 10 girls). The dental models were processed by a 3D scanner. Landmarks were marked to achieve inter-canine distance, inter-tuberosity distance and arch length measurements. <i>t</i>-Tests were used for intergroup comparisons (<i>p</i> < .05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The maxillary cleft arch was demonstrated to be wider and longer in the posterior region compared to the control group. The inter-canine distance did not present differences between the cleft and controls. The inter-canine distance of the control group was the only measurement influenced by the variable sex.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The cleft significantly interfered with the arch posterior width and arch sagittal length, making them larger. There was no statistical difference in the measurements between sex in the cleft group.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":"27 6","pages":"903-908"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maxillary arch dimensions in bilateral cleft lip and palate in the age 0–5 months\",\"authors\":\"Adriano Porto Peixoto, Felicia Miranda, Rayane de Oliveira Pinto, Tiago Turri de Castro Ribeiro, Franciele Salazar Somensi Lara, Fabrício Monteiro de Castro Machado, Daniela Garib\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ocr.12836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) divides the maxillary arch into three segments, separated from each other, resulting in abnormal growth of the alveolar arch. This study evaluated the maxillary arch dimensions in BCLP and compared them with neonates without craniofacial anomalies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cleft centre. Sixty-six neonates aged 0–5 months were divided into two groups: cleft group—children with BCLP (23 boys and 18 girls) and control group—children without craniofacial deformities (15 boys and 10 girls). The dental models were processed by a 3D scanner. Landmarks were marked to achieve inter-canine distance, inter-tuberosity distance and arch length measurements. <i>t</i>-Tests were used for intergroup comparisons (<i>p</i> < .05).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The maxillary cleft arch was demonstrated to be wider and longer in the posterior region compared to the control group. The inter-canine distance did not present differences between the cleft and controls. The inter-canine distance of the control group was the only measurement influenced by the variable sex.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The cleft significantly interfered with the arch posterior width and arch sagittal length, making them larger. There was no statistical difference in the measurements between sex in the cleft group.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"903-908\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ocr.12836\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ocr.12836","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Maxillary arch dimensions in bilateral cleft lip and palate in the age 0–5 months
Introduction
The complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) divides the maxillary arch into three segments, separated from each other, resulting in abnormal growth of the alveolar arch. This study evaluated the maxillary arch dimensions in BCLP and compared them with neonates without craniofacial anomalies.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary cleft centre. Sixty-six neonates aged 0–5 months were divided into two groups: cleft group—children with BCLP (23 boys and 18 girls) and control group—children without craniofacial deformities (15 boys and 10 girls). The dental models were processed by a 3D scanner. Landmarks were marked to achieve inter-canine distance, inter-tuberosity distance and arch length measurements. t-Tests were used for intergroup comparisons (p < .05).
Results
The maxillary cleft arch was demonstrated to be wider and longer in the posterior region compared to the control group. The inter-canine distance did not present differences between the cleft and controls. The inter-canine distance of the control group was the only measurement influenced by the variable sex.
Conclusions
The cleft significantly interfered with the arch posterior width and arch sagittal length, making them larger. There was no statistical difference in the measurements between sex in the cleft group.
期刊介绍:
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions.
The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements.
The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.