Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: dento‐facial outcomes. (November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Al‐Ghatam, R.; Jones, T. E. M.; Ireland, A. J.; Atack, N. E.; Chawla, O.; Deacon, S.; Albery, L.; Cobb, A. R. M.; Cadogan, J.; Leary, S.; Waylen, A.; Wills, A. K.; Richard, B.; Bella, H.; Ness, A. R.; Sandy, J. R.
• Is Part Of: Orthodontics and craniofacial research. Volume 18(2015) Supplement 2
• Page Start: 14
• Page End: 24
• Publication Date: 2015-11
• Subjects: cleft lip -- cleft palate -- face -- treatment outcome; Skull -- Growth -- Periodicals; Facial bones -- Growth -- Periodicals; Orthodontics -- Periodicals; Orthodontics, Corrective -- Periodicals; Orthodontic appliances -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12109
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1601-6335

Abstract

Structured Abstract: Objectives: To compare facial appearance and dento‐alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. Setting and sample population: Five‐year‐olds born with non‐syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low‐volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high‐volume operator model. Materials and methods: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento‐alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5‐Year‐Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys. Results: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento‐alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento‐alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento‐alveolar relationships. Conclusions: Facial and dento‐alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.