Assessment of nasopharynx area and level of severity posterior crossbite on children with cleft lips and palate post-palatoplasty

Anie Apriani, Risti Saptarini Primarti, Alwin Kasim, Fahmi Oscandar

Abstract


Introduction: Many children with post palatoplasty had crossbite posterior. This study was aimed to assess the nasopharynx area and the posterior crossbite severity level of children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) who received palatoplasty treatment compared to normal children. Methods: The study was observational analytic. The research subject was 14 children with CLP post-palatoplasty and 14 normal children. The object of research was 28 study models and secondary data of lateral cephalometric radiograph of children with CLP post palatoplasty and normal children. The measurement of PTM-ad1-Ad2-PTM and PTM-So-Ba-PTM were used to measure the nasopharyngeal area. Study models were assessed to analyse the level of severity of posterior crossbite. Results: The average of the soft tissues (the nasopharynx) area children with CLP post-palatoplasty was 35.02 mm2, which was lower than the normal child (35.73 mm2). Similarly, the average of the hard tissues (the nasopharynx) area children with CLP post-palatoplasty was 301.40 mm2, which was smaller than the normal children (315.54 mm2). Statistical analysis of the nasopharynx area resulted in non-significant difference. All children with CLP post-palatoplasty was suffered from posterior crossbite. The level of severity posterior crossbite, which was categorised as good was 42.9%, poor criteria was 35.7%, moderate criteria was 14.3%, and very good criteria was 7.1%. Conclusion: There is no difference between the average size of the nasopharynx area on children with CLP post-palatoplasty and normal children. The level of severity posterior crossbite after palatoplasty in CLP children mostly included in the good criteria.


Keywords


Nasopharynx; posterior crossbite; palatoplasty

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jones JE, Sadove AM, Dean JA, Huebener DV. Multidiciplinary Team Approach to Cleft Lip and Palate Management. In: McDonald R, Avery D, Dean J. McDonald and Avery Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Elsevier; 2011. pp. 614-37.

Reiser E. Cleft Size and Maxillary Arch Dimensions in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate and Cleft Palate [dissertation]. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet; 2011. pp. 1-72.

Irawan H, Kartika I. Technique of labiopalatoschizis surgery. CDK215. 2014; 41(4): 304-8.

Lesmana RSN. Prevalensi Celah Bibir dan Langit-Langit Di Yayasan Pembina Penderita Celah Bibir dan Langit-Langit (YPPCBL) Bandung Tahun 2008-2012 [minor thesis]. Bandung: Maranatha Christian University; 2013.

Friel MT, Starbuck JM, Ghoneima AM, Murage K, Kula KS, Tholpady S, et al. Airway obstruction and the unilateral cleft lip and palate deformity. Ann Plast Surg. 2015; 75(1): 37-43. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000027

Shi B, Losee JE. The impact of cleft lip and palate repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci. 2015; 7(1): 14-17. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2014.59

Wermker K, Jung S, Joos U, Kleinheinz J. Nasopharyngeal development in patients with cleft lip and palate: A retrospective case-control study. Int J Otolaryngol. 2012; 2012: 458507. DOI: 10.1155/2012/458507

Gohilot A, Pradhan T, Keluskar KM. Cephalometric evaluation of adenoids, upper airway, maxilla, velum length, need ratio for determining velopharyngeal incompetency in subjects with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014; 32(4): 297-303. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140950

Grewal N, Godhane AV. Lateral cephalometry: A simple and economic clinical guide for assessment of nasopharyngeal free airway space in mouth breathers. Contemp Clin Dent. 2010; 1(2): 66-9. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.68589

Wangsrimongkol T, Jansawang W. The assessment of treatment outcome by evaluation of dental arch relationship in cleft lip/palate. J Med Assoc Thai. 2010; 93(Suppl 4): S100-6.

de Vasconcellos Vilella O, de Souza Vilella B, Karsten A, Filho DI, Monteiro AA, Koch HA, et al. Evaluation of the nasopharyngeal free airway space based on lateral cephalometric radographs and endoscopy. Orthod. 2004; 1(3): 1-9.

Tothill C, Mossey PA. Assessment of arch constriction in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate and isolated cleft palate: A pilot study. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(2): 193-7. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm006

Leslie EJ, Marazita ML. Genetics of cleft lip and cleft palate. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2013; 163(4): 246-58. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31381

Carroll K, Mossey PA. Anatomical variations in clefts of the lip with or without cleft palate. Plast Surg Int. 2012; 2012: 542078. DOI: 10.1155/2012/542078

Koh KS, Kim SC, Oh TS. Management of velopharyngeal insufficiency using double opposing z-plasty in patients undergoing primary two-flap palatoplasty. Arch Plast Surg. 2013; 40(2): 97–103. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2013.40.2.97

Coccaro PJ, Pruzansky S, Subtelny JD. Nasopharyngeal growth. Cleft Palate J. 1967; 4(3): 214-27.

Gupta S, Subrahmanya RM. Assessment of orophraryngeal width in individuals with different facial skeletal patterns. Nitte Univ J Health Sci. 2014; (4)2: 34-38. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-170376

Mislik B, Hanggi MP, Signorelli L, Peltomaki TA, Patcas R. Pharyngeal airway dimensions: A cephalometric, growth-study-based analysis of physiological variation in children age 6-17. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36(3): 331-9. DOI: 10.1039/ejo/cjt068

Heidbuchel KL, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Kramer GJ, Prahl-Andersen B. Maxillary arch dimensions in bilateral cleft lip and palate from birth until four years of age in boys. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998; 35(3): 233-9. DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0233_madibc_2.3co_2

Reiser E, Skoog V, Gerdin B, Andlin-Sobocki A. Association between cleft size and crossbite in children with cleft palate and unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010; 47(2): 175-181. DOI: 10.1597/08-219_1

Alam MK, Kajii TS, Iida J. Spectrum of Factors Affecting Dental Arch Relationships in Japanese Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients. In: Bourzgui F. Orthodontics - Basic Aspect and Clinical Considerations. London: InTech Open Ltd.; 2012. pp. 301-323.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol32no2.17951

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Visitor Stat

Creative Commons License
Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License