Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ments in surgical techniques rather than any significant innovations in orthodontic appliances.
This review summarizes this progress in orthodontics as it
has contributed to the current concepts and controversies of
orthodontic treatment of the patient with complete clefts of lip
and palate. This review of the literature of the past 60 years
is intended to be representative but not encyclopedic. In addition, because the effectiveness of the orthodontic approaches
to the problems of complete clefts of lip and palate have not
been evaluated through randomized control trials (Roberts et
al., 1991; Shaw et al., 1996), at this point it is impossible to
state that one approach is unequivocally better than another.
However, these methodological shortcomings notwithstanding,
a review of the recent history of these milestones may help
explain the current state of the art in orthodontic treatment and
point to future directions to continue our progress.
MILESTONES
Dr. Long is Director of the Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic and Head of Orthodontics and Research of the Lancaster Cleft/Craniofacial Program, Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Assistant Professor of Orthodontics, Department of Orthodontics, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Assistant Professor of Orthodontics, Department of Orthodontics, University of
Maryland Dental School, Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Semb is a senior lecturer
in craniofacial anomalies and Head of the Dental Unit in the Department of
Plastic Surgery, and Dr. Shaw is Chairman of the Department of Orthodontics,
University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Reprint requests: Ross E. Long Jr., D.M.D., Ph.D., Lancaster Cleft Palate
Clinic, 223 North Line Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. E-mail
rlong@supernet.com.
IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF
ORTHODONTIC
TREATMENT OUTCOMES
1940s: Development of the Team Concept
The concept of team treatment was developing simultaneously in Europe and the United States in the 1930s and
1940s. For example, in Denmark, a law was passed in 1937
stating that a single national team should provide care for all
Danish individuals affected by clefts and should perform regular multidisciplinary follow-up. Interestingly, one of the cen533-1
533-2
tral figures in this milestone in the United States was an orthodontist, Herbert K. Cooper. Because of the traumatic nature
of primary surgery at the time and lack of coordinated interdisciplinary care, the subsequent dentofacial deformities exceeded most orthodontic treatment capabilities (Harkins,
1960). Thus, many early publications by these and other orthodontists at the time were as much focused on the need for
interdisciplinary teamwork (Cooper, 1942, 1953) as they were
on orthodontic techniques (Harvold, 1947, 1949). Following
the efforts of these orthodontists and other pioneers in the field,
the American Cleft Palate Association was formed in 1943,
with the mission of promoting the interdisciplinary care of
patients with clefts.
1950s: Understanding of the Role of Scar Tissue in Cleft
Dentofacial Deformity
A second milestone was the documentation by orthodontists,
participating on newly formed teams, of the severe three-dimensional maxillofacial growth disturbances in patients with
repaired clefts of lip and palate (Harvold, 1947, 1954; Graber,
1949, 1954; Slaughter and Brodie, 1949; Pruzansky, 1954).
When compared with early reports of near-normal maxillofacial growth in unoperated cleft populations (Ortiz-Monasterio
et al., 1959; Mestre et al., 1960), this irrefutable evidence of
significant growth differences drew attention to the amount and
location of scar tissue from primary surgery as the causative
factor. This awareness and subsequent improvements in primary surgical techniques contributed substantially to a decrease in the maxillary growth deformities that previously precluded the successful use of routine orthodontic approaches
(Bergland, 1967).
1960s: Development of Presurgical Orthopedics and
Primary Bone Grafting
Early descriptions of preoperative alignment of cleft maxillary segments were actually reported at the beginning of the
1950s (Kjellgren, 1949; McNeil, 1950). However, interest in
this technique of presurgical orthopedics increased through the
1960s (Burston, 1958; Huddart, 1961, 1967; Hotz, 1969; GrafPinthus and Bettex, 1970; Robertson and Hilton, 1971), when
it also became linked to primary bone grafting (Nordin, 1957;
Johanson and Ohlsson, 1961; Rosenstein 1963, 1969; Brauer
and Cronin, 1964). Most importantly, the early proponents of
these primary alveolar repairs identified the potential benefits
of restoration of the cleft alveolar ridge, most notably the improved bone support for cleft-adjacent teeth and the ability to
eliminate the need for prosthetic replacement of missing lateral
incisors. However, this new approach was not without its detractors (Pruzansky, 1964) who cautioned against jumping on
bandwagons based on short-term results presented as retrospective case series. Subsequently, early randomized control
trials and long-term evaluations of maxillary growth and malocclusion following primary bone grafting demonstrated additional problems from the early alveolar repair, dampening
of distraction osteogenesis to cleft-related maxillary deficiencies has similarly expanded orthodontic expectations, especially when integrated with protraction orthopedics (Molina,
1998; Figueroa and Polley, 1999).
1990s: Emphasis on Intercenter Audits and Outcome
Documentation
By the 1990s, the array of surgical treatment approaches had
become enormous, with little reliable information available
upon which to base rational decision making in choosing one
method over another (Semb and Shaw, 1998). In a recent survey of 201 European cleft centers, 194 different surgical protocols were in use for the primary closure of a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate alone (Shaw et al., 2000). With this
number of approaches possible, the inadequate research methods of previous decades left little chance of identifying specific
individual procedures that could be shown to be unequivocally
superior to others (Spriestersbach et al., 1973; Roberts et al.,
1991; Shaw et al., 1996; Semb and Shaw, 1998). However, an
approach using rigorous comparisons of outcomes from different centers, marked a significant change in direction from
previous methodologies. By evaluating outcomes that impacted on orthodontic treatment (occlusion, maxillary growth)
among six European centers with different surgical and orthodontic protocols, Mlsted et al. (1992) and Mars et al. (1992)
were able to draw general conclusions about the relationship
between surgical protocol and orthodontics. Most notably, the
outcomes found most favorable for routine nonsurgical orthodontic finishing appeared to be in centers with simple surgical
and orthodontic approaches (Shaw et al., 1992a, 1992b). While
clearly not capable of identifying the individual procedures
within a total surgical and orthodontic protocol that are responsible for favorable or unfavorable outcomes, intercenter
comparisons have become a key part of quality improvement
programs, leading to international agreements on standardized
documentation (Shaw et al., 2000).
CHARACTERISTIC ORTHODONTIC PROBLEMS
COMPLETE CLEFTS OF LIP AND PALATE
IN
Detailed analysis of large groups of individuals with unoperated clefts reveals characteristic underlying variations in facial form that occur independently of surgical interference
(Mars and Houston, 1990; da Silva et al., 1992, 1993; Capelozza et al., 1993). Complete clefting of the lip and palate even
without surgery is associated with mandibular retrusion, increased gonial angle and increased lower anterior facial height,
and a small but relatively protrusive maxilla with short upper
posterior facial height. The additional adverse influence of surgery is evident mostly in the anteroposterior and transverse
dimensions of the maxilla.
Maxillary Skeletal Retrusion
Many patients with repaired complete clefts exhibit varying
degrees of maxillary sagittal deficiency, which increases with
533-3
533-4
FOR
PATIENTS
533-5
proponents of these techniques to continue careful and standardized documentation, to carry out rigorous intra- and intercenter audits of treatment outcomes, and to participate in randomized control trials. To date, the only randomized trial of
presurgical orthopedics reported did not reveal any benefits but
did document the economic burden of the treatment (KuijpersJagtman and Prahl, 1996).
Primary Dentition Treatment
Orthodontic intervention in the primary dentition has occasionally been recommended over the past 60 years, though
less so in recent years. Of interest is the fact that routine primary dentition treatment seems to have been more frequently
emphasized in the decades during which the severe three-dimensional maxillary deformities in clefting were being exposed. Suggested treatment at that time ranged from full banding (Pierce et al., 1956) to routine arch expansion (Harvold,
1949; Pruzansky, 1954, 1955; Subtelny and Brodie, 1954; Subtelny, 1957, 1966; Olin, 1966; Fishman, 1969). The goals and
proposed benefits of this phase of treatment, mentioned by
these authors, included improvement of alveolar development
in the cleft site by unlocking overlapped maxillary segments; improvement in speech development and nasal breathing by expanding the maxilla and providing more tongue
space; improvement in masticatory function by elimination of
crossbite; and improvement in future permanent tooth eruption
and alignment. If one considers the fact that the more severe
maxillary deformities seen in these earlier decades probably
resulted in an earlier-aged appearance of significant maxillary
arch deformities and malocclusion, it is logical that primary
dentition intervention would have received greater emphasis.
Although some authors have continued to stress the need
for routine primary dentition treatment (Subtelny, 1990), others have suggested treatment only for severe functional problems (Ross, 1975; Cooper et al., 1979; Aduss and Figueroa,
1990; Olin, 1990). Still others saw no benefit to primary dentition intervention at all (Bergland, 1973; Bergland and Sidhu,
1974; Semb and Shaw, 2000). It seems likely that these differing beliefs may be partially related to the decreasing severity of primary dentition problems that occurred naturally over
time as primary surgical procedures improved. However, the
strongest argument against primary dentition treatment is that
it does not pass the burden versus benefit of treatment test.
There is currently no evidence that the additional treatment
provided at this age either eliminates mixed dentition intervention or can provide improved capabilities or results not
possible through a single phase of treatment in the mixed dentition. Primary dentition treatment also calls for lengthy posttreatment retention adding significantly to the overall period
when the child must wear appliances.
Mixed Dentition Treatment
Over the past two decades, the scope of mixed dentition
treatment has been broadened and refined. Many of the skeletal
533-6
533-7
over the past 60 years. These changes have been most adequately characterized by Bergland et al. (1986a). In their description of progress in orthodontic treatment, these authors
characterized the period before 1945 as the Prosthodontic
Era because of the extreme nature of the dentofacial deformities following the traumatic nature of primary surgery that
was carried out at that time. Final permanent dentition treatment rested largely in the hands of the prosthodontist rather
than the orthodontist. With improvements in surgery and interdisciplinary team management, and a subsequent decrease
in maxillary growth problems, Bergland et al. described the
period of 1945 to 1975 as the Orthodontic/Prosthodontic
Era. Although the problems encountered fell more within the
capabilities of orthodontic treatment, prosthetic replacement of
missing teeth across the cleft site was still required following
arch expansion. More recently, with the introduction of reliable
bone grafting, the current phase has been labeled as the NonProsthodontic Challenge. With coordinated team management, excellent primary surgery, favorable sagittal growth patterns unrestricted by excessive scar tissue, proper management
of the maxillary segment collapse, successful and timely bone
grafting, and normally erupting dentition, many authors report
an increasing frequency of permanent dentition treatment that
is possible using the common approaches for routine noncleft
orthodontics (Olin, 1990; Subtelny, 1990; Aduss and Figueroa,
1990; Rygh and Tindlund, 1996; Semb and Shaw, 2000).
Management of the Dentition Adjacent to the Previous
Cleft Site
Since the advent of routine and successful bone grafting,
space closure in the cleft site has become a desirable and
achievable goal to eliminate the need for artificial replacement
teeth. Long-term evaluation in patients without clefts has
proved the superiority of orthodontic space closure over restorative treatment (Nordquist and McNeill, 1975). Although
the conditions for this to be feasible are not always present
multiple missing teeth, poor maxillary growth (Bergland et al.,
1986a, 1986b; Ramstad and Semb, 1997), when attempted,
most authors have reported high rates of success. Turvey et al.
(1984) reported that in a sample of 24 patients evaluated after
final orthodontic treatment, 50% had the space for missing
lateral incisors closed by aligning the cuspid next to the central
incisor. One of the largest samples of bone-grafted cleft sites
examined reported a 90% success rate in closing space when
grafts were placed before cuspid eruption (Bergland et al.,
1986a). It is likely that a major reason for the frequent ability
to close spaces relates to a corresponding high rate of natural
cuspid eruption through the graft. Although an earlier study
by El Deeb et al. (1982) reported only a 27% spontaneous
eruption rate for cuspids, other reports since then have shown
consistently higher rates: Troxell et al (1982) 295%; Turvey
et al. (1984) 297%; Enemark et al. (1985) 292%; Bergland
et al. (1986a) 285%; Long et al. (1995) 295%. It is logical
that the normal mesial eruption path of the cuspid, combined
533-8
with a missing lateral incisor, would lend itself to a spaceclosing, cuspid-substitution approach to treatment.
In the minority of cases in which space closure is not possible, the use of adhesive bridgework has become a treatment
of choice (Ramstad, 1998) because of the additional root support for abutment teeth provided by the bone graft (Turvey et
al., 1984). However, the use of implants in the grafted alveolar
ridge has been considered (Rygh and Tindllund, 1996; Vig et
al., 1996; Lilja et al., 1998). Several case reports of implants
to a grafted cleft site have been published (Verdi et al., 1991;
Takahashi et al., 1997). The longest follow-up (3 years), a case
series of 14 is that of Kearns et al. (1997). These authors
reported a 90% success rate of implants in grafted cleft alveolar ridges. Interestingly, all were late secondary grafts in the
permanent dentition, and 6 of the 14 patients required augmentation grafts to provide adequate bone in the cleft site.
Also of note was the fact that the longer the time span between
graft and implant placement, the more likely was the need for
augmentation. From this it would appear that mixed dentition
grafts, unoccupied by a mesially erupting cuspid, would most
likely be unsuitable for implants without first undergoing ridge
augmentation close to the time of implant placement.
Another possibility that has been reported is transplantation
of a lower premolar to the upper arch (Hillerup et al., 1987;
Ramstad and Semb, 1997; Semb and Schwartz, 1997), best
results being reported when root development is one-half to
three-quarters finished. Long-term results of teeth transplanted
in patients without clefts have been very favorable (Schwartz
et al., 1985a, 1985b; Andreasen et al., 1990a, 1990b, 1990c,
1990d).
Residual Transverse Deficiencies
In spite of earlier management of the transverse problems
described above, the possibility of encountering remaining
problems with maxillary constriction and inadequate buccal
overjet have been mentioned by almost all of the authors cited
above. Of primary importance since the advent of bone grafting is the decreasing ability to carry out pure skeletal segmental expansion once the alveolar cleft is repaired. Long (1995)
reported successful separation of the remaining interpremaxillary portion of the midpalatal suture using rapid jack-screw
expansion in the permanent dentition of unilateral clefts. The
same approach taken with bilateral clefts was found to be unsuccessful, possibly related to early obliteration of the interpremaxillary suture in the bilateral condition (Delaire and Precious, 1986). Thus, it is critical to complete as much segment
expansion in the mixed dentition prior to bone grafting as possible.
Unfavorable Class III Skeletal Pattern
In spite of the improvements in facial growth results seen
in the past 60 years, Rosss (1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1987d)
report based on 1600 lateral cephalometric radiographs from
15 centers worldwide still suggests an incidence of maxillary
retrusion requiring end-stage orthognathic surgery of approximately 25%. Similarly, Mars et al. (1992) in their evaluation
of dental study models of 9-year-old patients from six different
centers found a range of 10% to 50% of patients showing clear
indications of requiring eventual orthognathic surgery, depending on the individual center. While these percentages represent an improvement over the percentages that would have
been found in the 1940s and 1950s, they still represent a significantly greater incidence than that found in the noncleft population (1%). Fortunately, the development of effective orthognathic surgical techniques in the 1970s and 1980s, mentioned earlier in this review, has provided orthodontics with
the means to complete treatment of almost all cases with a
nonprosthodontic approach (Posnick et al., 1990; Turvey et
al., 1996; Wolford and El Deeb, 1998).
The specifics of the evolution of these surgical techniques
is outside the scope of this review. The publications most relevant to orthodontic treatment planning relate to those evaluating the stability of maxillary advancement in patients with
clefts (Posnick and Ewing, 1980; Stoelinga et al., 1987), and
improved methods of predicting hard and soft tissue changes
following surgery. Most surgeons have concluded that stability
following advancement is more problematic than for the noncleft population. However, the use of rigid internal fixation and
block bone grafts has reduced the instability of this procedure
(Waldrop and Wolford, 1989). The use of three-dimensional
cephalometrics and computed tomography scanned dental
models (Cutting et al., 1986; Grayson, 1990), video imaging
(Sarver et al., 1988; Sinclair et al., 1995), and computer-generated images (Gateno et al., 2000) have all improved the precision of surgical planning for hard tissue movements and the
predictability of soft tissue response. Although initially developed for noncleft orthognathic surgery, the application of these
methods to the cleft population has increased quickly.
Finally, with development of distraction osteogenesis and its
application to maxillary deficiency, described above, many
treatment-planning issues remain concerning the choice of orthognathic surgery versus distraction as the end-stage procedure of choice. While recent publications have demonstrated
the results possible with distraction (Figueroa and Polley,
1999) and a number of symposia have been held on the subject, there has been little attempt to develop differential diagnostic and treatment planning criteria, which would identify
those maxillary deficient patients that would be best treated
with routine orthognathic surgery versus distraction osteogenesis.
SUMMARY
The progress and evolution of orthodontic treatment for patients with complete clefts has taken a slow and sometimes
circuitous route to present-day standards. Undoubtedly, much
of our acquisition of new knowledge and establishment of a
sound scientific basis have been undermined and delayed because of the failure by care providers to submit to the rigors
of established procedures for clinical trials (Pocock, 1983;
533-9
autotransplanted premolars. Part III. Periodontal healing subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990c;12:2537.
Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Bayer T. A long-term study of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part IV. Root development subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990d;12:3850.
Atack N, Hathorn I, Mars M, Sandy J. Study models of 5 year old children as
predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Europ J
Orthod. 1997;19:165170.
Atack NE, Hathorn I, Dowell T, Sandy J, Semb G, Leach A. Early detection
of differences in surgical outcome for cleft lip and palate. Br J Orthodont.
1998;25:181185.
Bell WH. Biologic basis for maxillary osteotomies. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1973;
38:279289.
Bell WH. LeFort I osteotomy for correction of maxillary deformities. J Oral
Surg. 1975;33:412426.
Bergland O. Changes in cleft palate malocclusion after the introduction of improved surgery. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1967;383397.
Bergland O. Treatment of the cleft palate malocclusion in the mixed and permanent dentition. Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1973:571574.
Bergland O, Semb G, Abyholm FE. Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft
by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Palate J. 1986a;23:175205.
Bergland O, Semb G, Abyholm F, Borchgrevink H, Eskeland G. Secondary
bone grafting and orthodontic treatment in patients with bilateral complete
clefts of the lip and palate. Ann Plast Surg. 1986b;17:460474.
Bergland O, Sidhu SS. Occlusal changes from the deciduous to the early mixed
dentition in unilateral complete clefts. Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:317326.
Berkowitz S. The complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: serial three-dimensional studies of excellent palatal growth. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds.
Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB
Saunders; 1990:456473.
Berkowitz S, Krischer J, Pruzansky S. Quantitative analysis of cleft palate casts.
Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:134161.
Bjerklin K, Kurol J, Paulin G. Ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent
molars in children with cleft lip and/or palate. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:535
540.
Bhn A. Anomalies of the lateral incisor in cases of harelip and cleft palate.
Acta Odont Scand. 1950;9:4159.
Bhn A. Dental anomalies in harelip and cleft palate. Acta Odontol Scand.
1963;21:1109.
Bokhout B, Hofman FX, van Limbeek J, Kramer GJ, Prahl-Andersen B. Increased caries prevalence in 2.5-year-old children with cleft lip and/or palate.
Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104:518522.
Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Combined orthodontic-surgical management of residual
palato-alveolar cleft defects. Amer J Orthod. 1976;70:2037.
Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal
clefts. J Oral Surg. 1972;30:8792.
Brauer RO, Cronin TD. Maxillary orthopedics and anterior palate repair with
bone grafting. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:3142.
Braun TW, Sotereanos GC. Orthognathic and secondary cleft reconstruction of
adolescent patients with cleft palate. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:425434.
Burston WR. Early orthodontic treatment of cleft palate conditions. Trans Br
Soc Orthod Dent Practit. 1958;9:4156.
Buschang PH, Porter C, Genecov E, Genecov D, Salyer KE. Face mask therapy
of preadolescents with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Angle Orthod. 1994;
64:145150.
Capelozza L Jr, Taniguchi SM, da Silva OG Jr. Craniofacial morphology of
adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:376381.
Converse JM, Wood-Smith D, Coccaro PJ. Surgical positioning of the maxilla.
In: Georgiade NG, ed. Symposium of Management of Cleft Lip and Palate
and Associated Deformities. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1974:228237.
Cooper HK. Cleft palate: dentistrys opportunity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1951;42:
3747.
Cooper HK. Crippled children? Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1942;28:3538.
Cooper HK. Integration of services in the treatment of cleft lip and cleft palate.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1953;47:2732.
533-10
Cooper HK, Long RE Sr, Long RE Jr, Pepek MJ. Orthodontics and oral orthopedics. In: Cooper HK, Harding RL, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M, Millard
RT eds. Cleft Palate and Cleft Lip: A Team Approach to Clinical Management and Rehabilitation of the Patient. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1979:
358429.
Cutting CB, Bookstein FL, Grayson BH, Fellingham L, McCarthy JG. Threedimensional computer-assisted design of craniofacial surgical procedures:
optimization and interaction with cephalometrics and CT based models.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77:877887.
Dahl E. Craniofacial morphology in congenital clefts of the lip and palate. An
x-ray cephalometric study of young adult males. Acta Odontol Scand. 1970;
28(suppl 57):1167.
Delaire J. Considerations sur la croissance faciale en particulier du maxillaire
superieur deductions therapeutiques. Rev Stomatol. 1971;72:5776.
Delaire J. Premiers resultats de la gingivo-periosto-plastie primaire (avec ou
sans osteo-plastie) In: Il trattamento chirurgico ed ortodontico della labiopalatoschisi. La ricostruzione dellequilibrio funzionale. Vol. II. Milan:
ACPS Magnta, 1989:121.
Delaire J, Precious D. Influence of the nasal septum on maxillonasal growth in
patients with congenital labiomaxillary cleft. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23:270
277.
Delaire J, Verdon P, Lumineau JP, Cherga-Negrea A, Talmant J, Boisson M.
Quelques resultants des tractions extra-orales a` appui fronto-mentonnier
dans le traitement orthopedique des malformations maxillo-mandibullaires
de classe III et des sequelles osseuses des fentes labio-maxillaires. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1972;73:633642.
El Deeb M, Messer LB, Lehnert MW, Hebda TW, Waite DE. Canine eruption
into grafted bone in maxillary alveolar cleft defects. Cleft Palate J. 1982;
19:916.
Enemark H, Bolund S, Jrgensen I. Evaluation of unilateral cleft lip and palate
treatment: longterm results. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:354361.
Enemark H, Krantz-Simonsen E, Schramm JE. Secondary bonegrafting in unilateral cleft lip palate patients: indications and treatment procedure. Int J
Oral Surg. 1985;14:210.
Enemark H, Sindet-Pedersen S, Bundgaard M. Long-term results after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987;45:913
919.
Figueroa AA, Polley JW. Management of severe cleft maxillary deficiency with
distraction osteogenesis: procedure and results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1999;115:112.
Fishman LS. Dentistrys responsibility to the cleft palate patient. NY State Dent
J. 1969;35:467479.
Fishman LS. Factors related to tooth number, eruptiontime, and tooth position
in cleft palate individuals. ASCD J Dent Child. 1970;37:303306.
Foster TD, Lavelle CLB. The size of the dentition in complete cleft lip and
palate. Cleft Palate J. 1971;8:177184.
Friede H, Enemark H, Semb G, Paulin G, Abyholm F, Bolund S, Lilja J, strup
L. Craniofacial and occlusal characteristics in unilateral cleft lip and palate
patients from four Scandinavian centres. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand
Surg. 1991;25:269276.
Friede H, Johanson B. A follow-up study of cleft children treated with primary
bonegrafting. I. Orthodontic aspects. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974;8:
88103.
Friede H, Pruzansky S. Long-term effects of premaxillary setback on facial
skeletal profile in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1985;
22:97105.
Gateno J, Teichgraeber JH, Aguilar E. Computer planning for distraction osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:873882.
Goldwyn RM. Simon P Hulllihen: pioneer oral and plastic surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;52:250257.
Graber TM. Craniofacial morphology in cleft palate and cleft lip deformities.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1949;88:359369.
Graber TM. The congenital cleft palate deformity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1954;48:
375395.
Graf-Pinthus B, Bettex M. Maxillary segmental stability in cleft lip and palate
subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7:5458.
Grayson BH. Planning orthognathic surgery. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds.
Kremenak CR, Huffman WC, Olin WH. Growth of maxillae in dogs after
palatal surgery. Cleft Palate J. 1967;4:617.
Krogman WM, Jain RB, Long RE Jr. Sex differences in craniofacial growth
from one month to ten years of cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1982;
19:6271.
Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Prahl C. A Study Into the Effects of Presurgical Orthopedic Treatment in Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients. A
Three-Center Prospective Clinical Trial in Nijmegen, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Interim Analysis. Nijmegen: University Press; 1996.
Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Prahl-Andersen B. Value of presurgical infant orthopedics: an intercentre randomized clinical trial. In: Transactions 8th International Congress on Cleft Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies. Lee
ST, Huang M, eds. Singapore: Stamford Press; 1997:1002.
Latham RA. Orthopedic advancement of the cleft maxillary segment: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17:227233.
Levitt T, Long RE Jr, Trotman CA. Maxillary growth in patients with clefts
following secondary alveolar bone grafting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;
36:398406.
Lilja J, Kalaaji A, Friede H, Elander A. Combined bone grafting and delayed
closure of the hard palate in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate:
facilitation of lateral incisor eruption and evaluation of indicators for timing
of the procedure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:98105.
Lilja J, Moller M, Friede H, Lauritzen C, Petterson LE, Johanson B. Bone
grafting at the stage of mixed dentition in cleft lip and palate patients. Scand
J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1987;21:7379.
Lilja J, Yontchev E, Friede H, Elander A. Use of titanium dental implants as
an integrated part of a CLP protocol. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand
Surg. 1998;32:213219.
Long RE Jr. Factors affecting the success of secondary alveolar bone grafting
in patients with complete clefts of the lip and palate. In: Trotman CA, McNamara JA Jr, eds. Orthodontic Treatment: Outcome and Effectiveness,
Monograph 30. Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1995:271295.
Long RE Jr. The clefting condition. In: McKinstry R, ed. Cleft Palate Dentistry.
Arlington, VA: ABI Professional Publications; 1998:133.
Long RE Jr, McNamara JA. Facial growth following pharyngeal flap surgery:
skeletal assessment on serial lateral cephalometric radiograms. Am J Orthod.
1985;87:187196.
Long RE Jr, Paterno M, Vinson B. The effect of cuspid positioning in the cleft
at the time of secondary alveolar bone grafting on eventual graft success.
Cleft Palate J. 1996;33:225230.
Long RE Jr, Spangler BE, Yow M. Cleft width and secondary alveolar bone
graft success. Cleft Palate J. 1995;32:420427.
Mars M, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, Dahl E, McWilliam J, Mlsted K,
Plint DA, Prahl-Andersen B, Semb G, Shaw WC, the RPS. A six-center
international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip
and palate: part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;
29:405408.
Mars M, Houston WJB. A preliminary study of facial growth and morphology
in unoperated male unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects over 13 years of
age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1990;27:710.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJB, Bergland O, Semb G. The Golson Yardstick:
a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314322.
Maull DJ, Grayson BH, Cutting CB, Brecht LL, Bookstein FL, Khorrambadi
D, Webb JA, Hurwitz , DJ . Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding on
three-dimensional nasal shape in unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
1999;36:391397.
Mazaheri M, Athanasiou AE, Long RE Jr, Kolokitha OG. Evaluation of maxillary dental arch form in unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate from
one month to four years. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:9093.
Mazaheri M, Harding RL, Cooper JA, Meier JA, Jones TS. Changes in arch
form and dimensions of cleft patients. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:1932.
Mazaheri M, Harding RL, Nanda S. The effects of surgery on maxillary growth
and cleft width. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1967;40:2230.
McCance AM, Roberts-Harry D, Sherriff M, Mars M, Houston WJB. A study
533-11
model analysis of adult unoperated Sri Lankans with unilateral cleft lip and
palate. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:146154.
McNeil CK. Orthodontic procedures in the treatment of congenital cleft palate.
Dent Rec. 1950;70:126132.
Mestre JC, DeJesus J, Subtelny JD. Unoperated oral clefts at maturation. Angle
Orthod. 1960;30:7885.
Millard DR Jr. Cleft Craft: The evolution of Its Surgery. Vol. 3. Boston: Little,
Brown; 1980:285298.
Molina F. Esthetic and functional benefits in cleft and prognathic patients during
the mixed dentition. In: McNamara JA, Trotman CA, eds. Distraction Osteogenesis and Tissue Engineering. Monograph 34. Craniofacial Growth
Series. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1998:3741.
Mlsted K, Asher-McDade C, Brattstrom V, Dahl E, Mars M, McWilliam J,
Plint DA, Prahl-Andersen B, Semb G, Shaw WC, the RPS. A six-center
international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip
and palate: part 2. Craniofacial form and soft tissue profile. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1992;29:398404.
Nordin K-E. Treatment of primary total cleft palate deformity. Preoperative
orthopedic correction of the displaced components of the upper jaw in infants followed by bone grafting to the alveolar process clefts. Trans Eur
Orthod Soc. 1957:333339.
Nordquist GG, McNeill RW. Orthodontic vs. restorative treatment of the congenitally absent lateral incisor: long term periodontal and occlusal evaluation. J Periodontol. 1975;46:139143.
Obwegeser HL. Surgery as an adjunct to orthodontics in normal and cleft palate
patients. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1966;42:343353.
Obwegeser HL. Surgical correction of small or retrodisplaced maxillae. The
dish-face deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;43:351365.
Ohkiba T, Hanada K. Adaptive functional changes in the swallowing pattern
of the tongue following expansion of the maxillary dental arch in subjects
with and without cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26:2130.
Olin, WH. Cleft lip and palate rehabilitation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1960.
Olin, WH. Cleft lip and palate rehabilitation. Am J Orthod. 1966;52:126144.
Olin WH. Orthodontic treatment in different stages of growth and development.
In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip
and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:649662.
Ortiz-Monasterio F, Rebeh AS, Valderrama M, Cruz R. Cephalometric measurements on adult patients with nonoperated cleft palates. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 1959;24532461.
Paulin G, Astrand P, Rosenquist JB, Bartholdson L. Intermediate bone grafting
of alveolar clefts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988;16:27.
Paulin G, Thilander B. Dentofacial relations in young adults with unilateral
cleft lip and palate. A follow-up study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand
Surg. 1991;25:6372.
Peterka M, Mullerova Z. Tooth size in children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1983;20:307313.
Pierce G, Terwilliger K, Pennisi Jr Y, Klabunde H. Early orthodontic treatment
in cleft palate children. Angle Orthod. 1956;26:110120.
Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials. A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley;
1983.
Poole MD, Robinson PP, Nunn ME. Maxillary advancement in cleft palate
patients. A modification of the LeFort I osteotomy and preliminary results.
J Maxillofac Surg. 1986;14:123127.
Posnick JC, Ewing MP. Skeletal stability after LeFort I maxillary advancement
in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;
85:706710.
Posnick JC, Witzel MA, Dagys AP. Management of jaw deformities in the cleft
patient. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Management of
Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:530543.
Pruzansky S. Factors determining arch form in clefts of the lip and palate. Am
J Orthod. 1955;41:827851.
Pruzansky S. Presurgical orthopedics and bone grafting for infants with clefts
of the lip and palate: a dissent. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:164187.
Pruzansky S. The role of the orthodontist in a cleft palate team. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 1954;14:1029.
533-12
ondary bone-grafting in patients with residual cleft defects. Short-term evaluation. Int J Oral Surg. 1985;14:389398.
Sindet-Pedersen S, Enemark H. Management of impacted teeth in congenital
clefts. In: Alling CC, Helfrick JF, Alling RD, eds. Impacted Teeth. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993:344352.
Skoog T. The use of periosteal flaps in the repair of clefts of the primary palate.
Cleft Palate J. 1965;2:332339.
Slaughter WB, Brodie AG. Facial clefts and their surgical management in view
of recent research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1949;4:203224.
Smahel Z, Mullerova Z. Facial growth and development in unilateral cleft lip
and palate during the period of puberty: comparison of the development
after periosteoplasty and after primary bone grafting. Cleft Palate Craniofac
J. 1994;31:106115.
Solis A, Figueroa AA, Cohen M, Polley JW, Evans CA. Maxillary dental development in complete unilateral alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
1998;35:320328.
Spriestersbach DC, Dickson DR, Fraser FC, Horowitz SL, McWilliams BJ,
Paradise JL, Randall P. Clinical research in cleft lip and cleft palate: the
state of the art. Cleft Palate J. 1973;10:113165.
Stoelinga PJ, Vijver HR, Leenen RJ, Blidorp PA, Schoenaers JH. The prevention of relapse after maxillary osteotomies in cleft palate patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1987;15:326331.
Subtelny JD. Oral respiration: facial maldevelopment and corrective dentofacial
orthopedics. Angle Orthod. 1980;50:147164.
Subtelny JD. Orthodontic principles in treatment of cleft lip and palate. In:
Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and
Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:615636.
Subtelny JD. Orthodontic treatment of cleft lip and palate, birth to adulthood.
Angle Orthod. 1966;36:273292.
Subtelny JD. The importance of early orthodontic treatment in cleft palate planning. Angle Orthod. 1957;27:148158.
Subtelny JD. Width of the nasopharynx and related anatomic structures in normal and cleft palate children. Am J Orthod. 1955;40:889909.
Subtelny JD, Brodie A. An analysis of orthodontic expansion in unilateral cleft
lip and cleft palate patients. Am J Orthod. 1954;40:686697.
Suzuki A, Watanabe M, Nakano M, Takahama Y. Maxillary lateral incisors of
subjects with cleft lip and/or palate: part 2. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;
29:380384.
Takahashi T, Fukuda M, Yamaguchi T, Kochi S, Inai T, Watanabe M, Echigo
S. Use of an osseointegrated implant for dental rehabilitation after cleft
repair by periosteoplasty, acase report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:
268271.
Tideman H, Stoelinga P, Gallia L. LeFort I advancement with segmental osteotomies in patients with cleft palates. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:196199.
Tindlund RS. Orthopaedic protraction of the midface in the deciduous dentition.
Results covering 3 years out of treatment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg Suppl.
1 1989;17:1719.
Tindlund RS. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft
lip and palate before age 10 years. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31:295
308.
Tindlund RS, Rygh P. Maxillary protraction: different effects on facial mor-
533-13
phology in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1993;30:208221.
Tindlund RS, Rygh P, Be OE. Orthopedic protraction of the upper jaw in cleft
lip and palate patients during the deciduous and mixed dentition periods in
comparison with normal growth and development. Cleft Palate Craniofac
J. 1993;30:182194.
Trotman CA, Ross RB. Craniofacial growth in bilateral cleft lip and palate:
ages six years to adulthood. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:261273.
Trotman CA, Long RE Jr, Rosenstein S, Murphy C, Johnston L. Comparison
of facial form in primary alveolar bone grafted and non-grafted unilateral
cleft lip and palate patients: An intercenter retrospective study. Cleft Palate
J. 1996;33:9195.
Troxell JB, Fonseca RJ, Osbon DB. A retrospective study of alveolar cleft
grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1982;40:721725.
Turvey TA, Vig KWL, Fonseca RJ. Maxillary advancement and contouring in
the presence of cleft lip and palate. In: Turvey TA, Vig KWL, Fonseca RJ,
eds. Facial Clefts and Craniosynostosis. Principles and Management. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:441503.
Turvey TA, Vig KWL, Moriarty J, Hoke J. Delayed bone grafting in the cleft
maxilla and palate: a retrospective multidisciplinary analysis. Am J Orthod.
1984;86:244256.
Vargervik K. New bone formation secured by oriented stress in maxillary clefts.
Cleft Palate J. 1978;15:132140.
Vargervik K. Orthodontic management of unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1981;18:256270.
Vargervik K. Orthodontic treatment of cleft patients: characteristics of growth
and development/treatment principles. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:642649.
Verdi FJ, Lanzi GL, Cohen SR, Powell R. Use of the Branemark implant in
the cleft palate patient. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:301304.
Vig KWL, Turvey TA. Orthodontic-surgical interaction in the management of
cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 1985;12:735748.
Vig KWL, Turvey TA, Fonseca RJ. Orthodontic and surgical considerations in
bone grafting in the cleft maxilla and palate. In: Turvey TA, Vig KWL,
Fonseca RJ, eds. Facial Clefts and Craniosynostosis. Principles and Management. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:396440.
Waite DE, Kersten RB. Residual alveolar and palatal clefts. In: Bell WH, Proffit
WR, White RP, eds. Surgical Correction of Dentofacial Deformities. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1980:13291367.
Waldrop RW, Wolford LM. Maxillary stability following downgraft and/or advancement procedures with stabilization using rigid fixation and porous
block hydroxyapatitie implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;47:336342.
Westbrook MT Jr, West RA, McNeill RW. Simultaneous maxillary advancement
and closure of bilateral alveolar clefts and oronasal fistulas. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983;41:257260.
Wolford LM, El Deeb M. Oral surgical treatment of the cleft palate patient. In:
McKinstry, RE, ed. Cleft Palate Dentistry. Arlington, VA: ABI Professional
Publications; 1998:139193.
Wood RJ, Grayson BH, Cutting CB. Gingivoperiosteoplasty and midfacial
growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:1720.