STATE OF THE ART

Orthodontic Treatment of the Patient With Complete Clefts of Lip,

Alveolus, and Palate: Lessons of the Past 60 Years
ROSS E. LONG JR., D.M.D., M.S., PH.D.
GUNVOR SEMB, D.D.S., DR. ODONT.
WILLIAM C. SHAW, F.D.S., PH.D.

This review paper summarizes 60 years of progress in the orthodontic care

of patients with complete clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate. The progress
and evolution of orthodontic treatment for patients with complete clefts has
taken a slow and sometimes circuitous route to present-day standards. None-
theless, in spite of this history of slow and inefficient scientific and clinical
progress, review of the literature of the past 60 years does, in fact, reveal that
progress has been made. This progress has not only been in the area of im-
proved surgical and orthodontic techniques but also relative to the scientific
weaknesses of past decades. The investigations of more recent years seem to
be moving in a direction of better documentation, stricter methodologies, lon-
ger-term follow-up, larger sample sizes, etc. However, there remains much
work to be done. Only by adopting a more critical approach will protocols be
defined that can achieve optimal outcomes, while minimizing the burden of the
orthodontic treatment through elimination of superfluous intervention.

KEY WORDS: bone grafting, cleft lip and palate, dental development, dental
occlusion, orthodontic treatment

While orthodontics, as a specialty of dentistry, dates to the
turn of the previous century, the role of the orthodontist on
the cleft palate team has become more clearly defined only
over the past 60 years. Examination of the literature over this
period seems to suggest the appearance of key milestones each
decade that have contributed significantly to the improvement
in orthodontic treatment outcomes for patients with clefts.
It is also of note that no discussion of orthodontic progress
could be complete without an understanding of the essential
dependence of orthodontics on surgery. In no other realm of
orthodontic treatment is the success or failure of treatment so
inextricably tied to surgical capabilities and outcomes as it is
in the management of patients with clefts. As will be seen
below, most of the improvements in orthodontic treatment out-
comes over the past 60 years are actually related to improve-
ments in surgical techniques rather than any significant inno-
vations 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 ad-
dition, 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 IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF ORTHODONTIC

Dr. Long is Director of the Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic and Head of Or-
thodontics and Research of the Lancaster Cleft/Craniofacial Program, Lancas-
ter, Pennsylvania; Assistant Professor of Orthodontics, Department of Ortho-
dontics, 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.
TREATMENT OUTCOMES
1940s: Development of the Team Concept
The concept of team treatment was developing simulta-
neously 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 reg-
ular multidisciplinary follow-up. Interestingly, one of the cen-

533-1
533-2 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
tral figures in this milestone in the United States was an or-
thodontist, Herbert K. Cooper. Because of the traumatic nature
of primary surgery at the time and lack of coordinated inter-
disciplinary care, the subsequent dentofacial deformities ex-
ceeded most orthodontic treatment capabilities (Harkins,
1960). Thus, many early publications by these and other or-
thodontists 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-di-
mensional 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 maxillofa-
cial 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 pri-
mary surgical techniques contributed substantially to a de-
crease in the maxillary growth deformities that previously pre-
cluded 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 max-
illary 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; Graf-
Pinthus 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 im-
proved 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 de-
tractors (Pruzansky, 1964) who cautioned against ‘‘jumping on
bandwagons’’ based on short-term results presented as retro-
spective case series. Subsequently, early randomized control
trials and long-term evaluations of maxillary growth and mal-
occlusion following primary bone grafting demonstrated ad-
ditional problems from the early alveolar repair, dampening
the initial enthusiasm for this surgical and orthopedic approach
(Rehrmann et al., 1970; Jolleys and Robertson, 1972; Friede
and Johanson, 1974). While some particular variations of pri-
mary grafting and presurgical orthopedics have been reported
to provide the benefits without the growth risks (Rosenstein et
al., 1972, 1982), the concern over growth problems from this
early surgery remain (Ross, 1987c).
Another alternative to primary bone grafting was also intro-
duced in this period. Skoog (1965) described the use of local
periosteal flaps with the intention of promoting bone formation
in the cleft site. Although a subsequent publication reported
bone formation without the facial growth problems (Hellquist
and Pontén, 1979), periosteoplasty did not become widely pop-
ular. A variation of periosteoplasty, the gingivoalveoloplasty
or gingivoperioplasty, has been reintroduced (Millard, 1980;
Delaire, 1989) and has been shown to promote bone formation
in some patients (Santiago et al., 1998) with evidence of min-
imal short-term growth effects (Wood et al., 1997). However,
the long-term effects on facial growth and consistent avoidance
of bone grafting have not yet been determined.
1970s: Development of Mixed Dentition Bone Grafting
and Emphasis on Mixed Dentition Treatment
The landmark publications of Boyne and Sands (1972,
1976), describing bone-grafting surgery as a later procedure,
renewed interest in the orthodontic benefits to be derived from
this surgical technique. Improved bone support for cleft-adja-
cent teeth and the ability to eliminate the need for prosthetic
replacement of missing lateral incisors have been documented
by many authors (Åbyholm et al., 1981; Hall and Posnick,
1983; Turvey et al., 1984; Enemark et al., 1985, 1987; Berg-
land et al., 1986a, 1986b; Helms et al., 1987; Lilja et al., 1987;
Paulin et al., 1988). Delaying the procedure until a majority
of maxillary growth has been completed seems also to have
minimized or eliminated the potential damaging growth effects
of bone grafting when carried out at younger ages (Ross,
1987c; Enemark et al., 1987; Semb, 1988; Levitt et al., 1999).
To derive maximum benefit from alveolar bone grafting, it was
recommended that the graft be placed prior to eruption of the
permanent canine and coordinated with mixed dentition ortho-
dontic treatment (Waite and Kersten, 1980; Åbyholm et al.,
1981; El Deeb et al., 1982; Enemark et al., 1985, 1987; Berg-
land et al., 1986a, 1986b; Paulin et al., 1988).
1980s: Development of Orthognathic Surgical Approaches
for Maxillary Deficiency
Development of the techniques for maxillary osteotomies
promoted by Obwegeser (1966, 1969) and Bell (1973, 1975),
and especially the surgical advancement of the cleft maxilla,
further expanded orthodontic treatment capabilities by allow-
ing for simultaneous correction of skeletal and dental defor-
mities (Converse et al., 1974; Braun and Sotereanos, 1980;
Tideman et al., 1980; Schendel and Delaire, 1981; Westbrook
et al., 1983; Poole et al., 1986). The more recent application

of distraction osteogenesis to cleft-related maxillary deficien-
cies has similarly expanded orthodontic expectations, espe-
cially 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 sur-
vey of 201 European cleft centers, 194 different surgical pro-
tocols were in use for the primary closure of a complete uni-
lateral cleft lip and palate alone (Shaw et al., 2000). With this
number of approaches possible, the inadequate research meth-
ods 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 dif-
ferent centers, marked a significant change in direction from
previous methodologies. By evaluating outcomes that impact-
ed on orthodontic treatment (occlusion, maxillary growth)
among six European centers with different surgical and ortho-
dontic protocols, Mølsted 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 ortho-
dontic 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 re-
sponsible 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 IN
COMPLETE CLEFTS OF LIP AND PALATE
Detailed analysis of large groups of individuals with uno-
perated clefts reveals characteristic underlying variations in fa-
cial form that occur independently of surgical interference
(Mars and Houston, 1990; da Silva et al., 1992, 1993; Cape-
lozza et al., 1993). Complete clefting of the lip and palate even
without surgery is associated with mandibular retrusion, in-
creased 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 sur-
gery 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
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-3
age as the cleft maxilla fails to maintain normal growth rates.
In unilateral clefts, this deficiency is often evident at early ages
and is progressive over time (Dahl, 1970; Ross, 1987a; Ene-
mark et al., 1990; Paulin and Thilander, 1991; Semb, 1991b;
Šmahel and Müllerova, 1994). In bilateral clefts, the appear-
ance of the deficiency may be delayed slightly because of the
initial prominence of the premaxilla but frequently appears by
adolescence (Dahl, 1970; Friede and Pruzansky, 1985; Semb,
1991a; Trotman and Ross, 1993; Heidbüchel et al., 1994; Semb
and Shaw, 1996). Some studies have identified these facial
growth disturbances to be greater in males (Ross, 1987a; Pau-
lin and Thilander, 1991; Semb, 1991b), and the failure of other
investigators to find similar sex differences in maxillary
growth up to the age of 10 years (Krogman et al., 1982) may
further substantiate the importance of the final adolescent
growth period in revealing the full extent of the dysplasia. This
retrusive growth pattern represents one of the orthodontist’s
greatest challenges and early recognition of skeletal imbalance
may avoid an unnecessary burden of fruitless early orthodontic
treatment of a skeletal problem.
Transverse Skeletal Dysplasias
The change in the relationship of the cleft alveolar segments
following primary lip and palate repair has been well docu-
mented (Subtelny, 1955; Pruzansky and Aduss, 1964; Maza-
heri et al., 1967, 1971; Aduss and Pruzansky, 1968; Harding
and Mazaheri, 1972; Berkowitz et al., 1974; Ross, 1975; Var-
gervik, 1981, 1990; Berkowitz, 1990; Honda et al., 1995,
Heidbüchel et al., 1998). With varying degrees of medial ro-
tation and collapse of the skeletal elements, the cleft maxilla
is predisposed for transverse deficiencies. However, some stud-
ies have shown significant collapse only 50% of the time at 4
years of age, with many patients exhibiting only minor medial
rotation limited to the cleft site itself (Vargervik, 1990; Ma-
zaheri et al., 1993). Furthermore, the predictability of this col-
lapse, and its relationship to the development of future pos-
terior crossbite, has also been shown to be uncertain (Schwartz
et al., 1984). This probably accounts for the less common ap-
pearance of clear transverse deficiencies in the primary den-
tition, as opposed to later stages of development (Bergland and
Sidhu, 1974; Cooper et al., 1979; Olin, 1990). However, ex-
acerbation of these initial transverse problems occurs with ad-
ditional dental eruption. They appear to be related to the prox-
imity and amount of scarring adjacent to the alveolar ridge
that create a further lingual deflection of the erupting perma-
nent dentition, aggravating the initial segment collapse (Kre-
menak et al., 1967; Ross and Johnston, 1972) Also, Ishiguro
et al. (1976) demonstrated an additional progressive narrowing
of the basal maxilla relative to the mandible, not through fur-
ther segment collapse but through a lack of normally expected
incremental width gains on the cleft side in unilateral clefts
and on both sides in bilateral clefts.
533-4 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
Vertical Skeletal Dysplasias
As mentioned above, abnormalities in vertical maxillary
growth also appear to be associated with corresponding chang-
es in mandibular growth direction even in the unoperated cleft
condition. This opening rotation of the mandible may be ex-
acerbated by additional primary and secondary surgical pro-
cedures, but the resultant mandibular retrusion can occasion-
ally mask a maxillary deficiency, albeit at the expense of a
bimaxillary retrognathic facial profile (Long and McNamara,
1985; Ross, 1987c; Trotman et al., 1996). Finally, this lower
face height excess combined with a concomitant deficiency in
maxillary height and possible impedance of posterior tooth
eruption has been reported to lead to an excessive freeway
space in patients with clefts (Ross and Johnston, 1967).
Abnormalities in Dental Development
Abnormalities in dental development have been described
by a number of authors. They all can be related to initial dis-
turbance and disruption of the embryonic process of dental
lamina formation, most notably in the area of failed merging
and fusion of the medial nasal, lateral nasal, and maxillary
processes (Bøhn, 1950, 1963; Ross and Johnston, 1972; Ranta,
1986; Long, 1998). Although the reported frequencies of var-
ious anomalies may vary, the overall pattern and types of
anomalies reported have been remarkably consistent over the
past 60 years.
The clinical effects of these embryonic failures include
missing teeth, supernumerary teeth, hypoplastic teeth, dys-
morphic teeth, and impacted teeth (Bøhn, 1950, 1963; Jordan
et al., 1966; Kraus et al., 1966; Ranta, 1986; Semb and
Schwartz, 1997). The tooth most commonly affected is the
lateral incisor. Its absence appears to be in the range of 10%
to 20% in the primary dentition, and 30% to 50% in the per-
manent dentition (Bøhn, 1950, 1963; Jordan et al., 1966; Ran-
ta, 1972, 1986, 1990; Ross and Johnston, 1972; Suzuki et al.,
1992). When the lateral incisor is present, it can occur on
either side of the cleft with near-normal form or be rudimen-
tary or malformed, especially in cases in which there are su-
pernumeraries on both sides of the cleft (Bøhn, 1950, 1963;
Ross and Johnston, 1972).
In addition to the problems with lateral incisor development,
other dental anomalies that affect orthodontic treatment occur
with greater frequency in the cleft population. Jordan et al.
(1966) reported that 54% of their cleft sample demonstrated
dental anomalies as opposed to 15% in the noncleft population.
Ranta (1983, 1986, 1990) has reported a significantly higher
incidence of congenitally missing teeth other than those adja-
cent to the cleft site (e.g., second premolars and maxillary
lateral incisors on the noncleft side). Generalized delayed den-
tal development on the sides of the maxillary arch affected by
complete clefts has also been reported (Fishman, 1970; Solis
et al., 1998). Overall tooth size has been shown to be smaller
in patients with clefts (Foster and Lavelle, 1971; Peterka and
Müllerova, 1983; McCance et al., 1990). Impaction of per-
manent canines adjacent to cleft sites has been shown to occur
at a much higher frequency in patients with unilateral complete
cleft lip and palate than in the noncleft population (Semb and
Schwartz, 1997). Finally, a higher frequency of first molar and
incisor impaction has been reported (Bjerklin et al., 1993), and
the prevalence of dental caries has been found to be increased
in children with clefts (Bokhout et al., 1996). These dental
anomalies all impact upon orthodontic treatment planning de-
cisions such as timing of orthodontic intervention, timing of
bone grafting, sequencing of orthodontic and surgical treat-
ment, extraction of teeth, space opening for prosthetic replace-
ments versus space closing, etc.
Dental Occlusion and Alignment
Numerous authors have summarized the most common
problems with occlusion and alignment (Ross, 1975; Cooper
et al., 1979; Subtelny, 1990; Vargervik, 1990). Most of these
are a reflection of the initial intrinsic deformities of the cleft
itself as well as postsurgical changes, and certain characteris-
tics seem to be pervasive in their appearance, regardless of the
specifics of prior treatment. Posterior crossbites are frequent,
varying in severity from single tooth to total segment involve-
ment and becoming worse in the permanent dentition. Maxil-
lary incisor rotations, lingual inclination, and frequent cross-
bites are typical also. Finally, significant arch asymmetry and
maxillary dental midline deviations are all common character-
istics of unilateral clefts (Semb and Shaw, 2000). Of greatest
interest from a historical perspective is not that the orthodontic
problems with occlusion and alignment just mentioned repre-
sent currently unique challenges. Rather, they are the very
same problems described by orthodontists for the past 60 years
(Harvold, 1947; Cooper, 1951; Pruzansky, 1954; Ricketts,
1956; Subtelny, 1957). However, while our surgical and or-
thodontic progress seems not to have eliminated many of them,
the relative severity of the problems seems to have decreased
at many centers, leading to the possibility of more successful
orthodontic treatment results for a larger percentage of pa-
tients.
Finally, with regard to the evaluation of dental occlusion
and alignment and future orthodontic treatment difficulties, the
development of rating schemes such as the Goslon Yardstick
(Mars et al., 1987) and the ‘5 year yardstick’ (Atack et al.,
1997, 1998) represent significant contributions. Their use in
numerous investigations such as the Eurocleft Study (Mars et
al., 1992), the Scandcleft study (Friede et al., 1991), and the
nationwide study of standards of surgical outcome in the U.K.
(Sandy et al., in press) have confirmed their validity, reliability,
and utility.
ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT PROCEDURES FOR PATIENTS
WITH COMPLETE CLEFTS
Benefit Versus Burden
The literature of the past 60 years is filled with case reports
and case series that appear to demonstrate the successful man-

agement of numerous cleft-related orthodontic problems
through surgical, orthopedic, or orthodontic treatment. In ad-
dition, given the continuous and often progressive nature of
orthodontically related problems over the entire growth and
dental eruption stages of the child with a cleft, treatment rec-
ommendations for nearly every conceivable age can be found.
Therein lie two of the most basic problems in evaluating the
efficacy of orthodontically related treatment protocols: (1) a
lack of long-term, methodologically sound evaluations of treat-
ment results and (2) the failure to consider the total burden of
treatment imposed on the patient versus the benefits expected
through multiple phases of orthodontic intervention. Both of
these aspects were stressed in the 1993 report by the American
Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association, Parameters for Evalu-
ation and Treatment of Patients with Cleft Lip/Palate or Other
Craniofacial Anomalies. In the list of ‘‘Fundamental Princi-
ples’’ it is clearly stated that ‘‘. . . it is the responsibility of
each team to monitor both short-term and long-term outcomes
. . . . . . . Longitudinal follow-up of patients, including appro-
priate documentation and record keeping, is essential’’ (p. 6).
In discussion of ‘‘Dental Care,’’ it is stressed that ‘‘ continuous
active orthodontic treatment . . . should be avoided’’ (p. 18).
An additional point in the same document is that teams (and
team members) should ‘‘ see sufficient numbers of patients
each year to maintain expertise in diagnosis and treatment’’
(p. 5). This has also been stressed as an issue of growing
importance by other authors (Shaw et al., 2000) since the or-
thodontic management of patients with complete clefts has be-
come a unique subspecialty calling for special skills and ex-
perience that are unlikely to be mastered through occasional
involvement.
Presurgical Orthopedic Treatment
This topic has been covered in depth in a separate review
article. Of interest however, is that comparisons of patients
treated at the same center with and without presurgical ortho-
pedics (for geographical reasons) have not shown benefit from
the intervention (Huddart, 1974; Ross and MacNamara, 1994).
The resurgence in enthusiasm for this approach seems to have
been driven by the development of appliances that provided
more direct and precise control of the maxillary segments both
prior to and following surgery (Latham, 1980). Furthermore,
the inclusion of nasal molding extensions on to the basic or-
thopedic appliance has expanded the treatment objectives to
include improved nasal esthetics following primary repair
(Grayson et al., 1999; Maull et al., 1999). However, of all
orthodontic protocols presently in use, the value of these ap-
proaches remains considerably uncertain because of the com-
mon problems described above: no long-term evaluations of
treatment results, no controlled studies, and failure to dem-
onstrate that the additional burden of treatment inherent in
these methods produces long-term benefits sufficiently better
than those available through less costly and less involved pro-
cedures. Although some preliminary attempts have been made
to address these issues (Wood et al., 1997), it is incumbent on
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-5
proponents of these techniques to continue careful and stan-
dardized documentation, to carry out rigorous intra- and inter-
center audits of treatment outcomes, and to participate in ran-
domized 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 (Kuijpers-
Jagtman and Prahl, 1996).
Primary Dentition Treatment
Orthodontic intervention in the primary dentition has oc-
casionally been recommended over the past 60 years, though
less so in recent years. Of interest is the fact that routine pri-
mary dentition treatment seems to have been more frequently
emphasized in the decades during which the severe three-di-
mensional maxillary deformities in clefting were being ex-
posed. Suggested treatment at that time ranged from full band-
ing (Pierce et al., 1956) to routine arch expansion (Harvold,
1949; Pruzansky, 1954, 1955; Subtelny and Brodie, 1954; Sub-
telny, 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 seg-
ments; improvement in speech development and nasal breath-
ing 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), oth-
ers have suggested treatment only for severe functional prob-
lems (Ross, 1975; Cooper et al., 1979; Aduss and Figueroa,
1990; Olin, 1990). Still others saw no benefit to primary den-
tition intervention at all (Bergland, 1973; Bergland and Sidhu,
1974; Semb and Shaw, 2000). It seems likely that these dif-
fering beliefs may be partially related to the decreasing sever-
ity 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 inter-
vention or can provide improved capabilities or results not
possible through a single phase of treatment in the mixed den-
tition. Primary dentition treatment also calls for lengthy post-
treatment 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 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
discrepancies and dental irregularities mentioned above are
amenable to mixed dentition intervention. Numerous authors
have stressed the beneficial effects on future dental and skel-
etal development through the elimination of functional and
structural problems at this developmental stage (Ross and
Johnston, 1972; Vargervik, 1981, 1990; Ohkiba and Hanada,
1989; Subtelny, 1990; Rygh and Tindlund, 1996). The most
commonly mentioned procedures include maxillary expansion
to correct the reduced transverse dimension; incisor alignment
and proclination to remove crowding, rotations, and anterior
crossbites; and maxillary protraction to reduce maxillary re-
trusion. These procedures tend to be coordinated carefully
around alveolar bone grafting (Vig and Turvey, 1985; Vig et
al., 1996).
Incisor Alignment
Alignment of severely malpositioned incisors in the mixed
dentition of children with complete clefts has been recom-
mended for decades because of its positive effect on self-es-
teem (Olin, 1960; Cooper et al., 1979; Semb 1990; Subtelny,
1990). Simultaneous correction of anterior crossbite when due
to retroclination of the maxillary incisors has been recom-
mended for the additional benefit of maximizing anterior de-
velopment of the maxillary dentoalveolar process (Ross and
Johnston, 1972; Vargervik, 1981; Subtelny, 1990). The meth-
ods used to accomplish this range from removable appliances
to partial fixed appliances (Cooper et al., 1979). The most im-
portant issue involving the sequencing of this procedure prior
to bone grafting relates to the danger of perforating the thin
lamina of alveolar bone covering the roots of teeth adjacent to
the cleft site (Turvey et al., 1984; Vig and Turvey, 1985; Vig
et al., 1996). However, with careful evaluation of the bone
support for cleft-adjacent teeth and proper control of root an-
gulation away from the cleft site, this presurgical alignment is
possible in many cases and can be economically achieved con-
comitant with pregrafting expansion when this is also neces-
sary (Semb, 1990; Long, 1995).
Maxillary Expansion
The need for maxillary expansion in many patients with
complete clefts has been recognized in nearly all publications
related to orthodontic treatment over the past 60 years (Har-
vold, 1949; Subtelny and Brodie, 1954; Pruzansky, 1954,
1955; Olin, 1966; Bergland, 1973; Ross, 1975; Cooper et al.,
1979; Vargervik, 1981; Vig and Turvey, 1985; Aduss and Fi-
gueroa, 1990). Although many of these early publications in-
dicated the need for expansion in nearly all cases, a more re-
cent report found this need in only 25% of 409 patients with
complete clefts (Semb, 1990). The proposed benefits of mixed
dentition maxillary expansion have been described identically
to those listed for expansion in the primary dentition. Inter-
estingly, most authors recommending infant presurgical ortho-
pedics and routine primary dentition expansion also acknowl-
edge the need for additional expansion in the mixed dentition.
This would seem to indicate that management of maxillary
width at those earlier periods does not routinely preclude the
need for additional expansion later, raising again the question
of the benefit versus burdens of these additional phases of
treatment, at least with regard to arch width.
A practical benefit of expanding maxillary segments prior
to bone grafting is the ease with which skeletal movement and
segment rotation can occur (Vargervik, 1978) with appliances
as simple as a removable quad helix (Bergland et al., 1986a,
1986b). With fixed jack screw–type expanders, slow expansion
of the appliance can also accomplish segmental expansion be-
cause of the absence of a complete midpalatal suture in cases
with complete clefts (Long, 1995). The absence of the mid-
palatal suture also means that pregrafting expansion accom-
plishes skeletal segmental movement at the expense of increas-
ing the cleft width (Long, 1995; Long et al., 1995). While
creating a cleft width that exceeds the soft tissue coverage
capabilities could negatively impact on bone graft results
(Long et al., 1995), the majority of reports in which presurgical
expansion was carried out have shown successful bone graft-
ing results (Johanson et al., 1974; Turvey et al., 1984; Berg-
land et al., 1986a). A final consideration using presurgical ex-
pansion is the possibility of uncovering covert oronasal fistu-
las, which could then be repaired simultaneously with bone
graft placement (Long, 1995; Vig et al., 1996), eliminating the
need for a separate fistula repair procedure.
A final area of concern relates to the exact timing of graft
placement during the total mixed dentition treatment phase. A
number of publications have suggested that the position and
stage of development of the permanent cuspid is the most im-
portant diagnostic feature in making this determination. Waite
and Kersten (1980), Åbyholm et al. (1981), El Deeb et al.
(1982), Troxell et al. (1982), Turvey et al. (1984), Bergland et
al. (1986a, 1986b), and Sindet-Pedersen and Enemark (1993)
have all used this method in suggesting optimal timing for
graft placement. All have shown good results with this ap-
proach, although each used slightly different criteria (root for-
mation, crown position, etc.). Delay of graft placement until
after completion of cuspid eruption has also been shown to
produce inferior results (Sindet-Pedersen and Enemark, 1985;
Bergland et al., 1986a; Helms et al., 1987). However, Long et
al. (1996) were unable to find any correlation between cuspid
positioning, from unerupted to fully erupted in the cleft site,
and subsequent bone graft success when using their more de-
tailed radiographic measurements. Finally, it should also be
mentioned that the foregoing concern over graft timing and
cuspid positioning is based on situations with missing or un-
usable lateral incisors. Rygh and Tindlund (1996), Lilja et al.
(2000), and Semb and Shaw (2000) have emphasized the need
to consider earlier alveolar repair in situations in which a lat-
eral incisor is present and requires additional bone support for
further normal development and eruption. At present it is un-
certain as to how much younger this alveolar repair can be
done before the possible benefits of improved support for lat-
eral incisors is offset by the risks of growth disturbances found
following primary bone grafting.

Maxillary Protraction Orthopedics
The desire to improve developing maxillary skeletal retru-
sion is also a treatment modality that has been recommended
for this mixed dentition treatment phase. Delaire (1971) was
one of the earliest proponents of the use of protraction face
frame therapy to attempt nonsurgical correction of the maxil-
lary deficiency (Delaire, 1971; Delaire et al., 1972). Subtelny
(1980), Sarnäs and Rune (1987), Buschang et al. (1994) also
described patients treated successfully with this approach. A
substantial follow-up of cases has been reported by Tindlund
and colleagues (Rygh and Tindlund, 1982, 1996; Tindlund,
1989, 1994; Tindlund and Rygh, 1993; Tindlund et al., 1993).
While providing evidence in the short-term of statistically sig-
nificant changes in anteroposterior position when starting treat-
ment on patients 6 years of age, these authors also described
the actual dimensional changes having taking place, which var-
ied from patient to patient. Some of these changes, on average,
approached clinical significance, with maxillary advancements
averaging 2 mm to 3 mm after 12 to 15 months of treatment.
However, this response was found in only 63% of the sample,
with the ‘‘poor response’’ group (27% of the sample) showing
only 0 mm to 1 mm advancement over the same time period.
A combined average of about 1.5-mm advancement over 12
to 15 months raises the question of the clinical significance
and true long-term benefits of this procedure. With the possi-
bility that following discontinuation of the appliance, the fu-
ture growth of these patients will continue to be maxillary
deficient, the degree to which this procedure has reduced or
eliminated the need for future orthognathic surgery has not
been determined. As a result, some authors have not recom-
mended the routine use of this approach (Semb and Shaw,
2000) inasmuch as it may also fail to pass the ‘‘benefits versus
burden of treatment’’ test.
Finally, a combination of maxillary protraction procedures
with distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla has been proposed
more recently. By using either a removable protraction face
frame (Molina, 1998) or a rigid external distraction device (Fi-
gueroa and Polley, 1999) and carrying out simultaneous cor-
ticotomy cuts in the buccal cortex of the maxilla, the latter
authors have shown case reports that demonstrate significant
maxillary movement in relatively short periods of time (max-
illary advancement of 7 mm to 8 mm after 3 to 4 months of
treatment). Although there are currently no long-term evalua-
tions concerning stability and permanent benefits, the possi-
bility exists that by increasing the benefits (greater maxillary
advancement) and reducing the burdens (shorter treatment
time), this combination could overcome the shortcomings of
standard nonsurgical protraction methods. On the other hand,
if further maxillary advancement is still required later in a
majority of patients, the benefits of early distraction become
more dubious.
Permanent Dentition Treatment
As a result of the ‘‘milestones’’ listed above, the description
of permanent dentition treatment has changed dramatically
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-7
over the past 60 years. These changes have been most ade-
quately characterized by Bergland et al. (1986a). In their de-
scription of progress in orthodontic treatment, these authors
characterized the period before 1945 as the ‘‘Prosthodontic
Era’’ because of the extreme nature of the dentofacial defor-
mities following the traumatic nature of primary surgery that
was carried out at that time. Final permanent dentition treat-
ment rested largely in the hands of the prosthodontist rather
than the orthodontist. With improvements in surgery and in-
terdisciplinary 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 ‘‘Non-
Prosthodontic Challenge.’’ With coordinated team manage-
ment, excellent primary surgery, favorable sagittal growth pat-
terns 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 re-
storative 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 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
with a missing lateral incisor, would lend itself to a space-
closing, cuspid-substitution approach to treatment.
In the minority of cases in which space closure is not pos-
sible, the use of adhesive bridgework has become a treatment
of choice (Ramstad, 1998) because of the additional root sup-
port 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 alve-
olar ridges. Interestingly, all were late secondary grafts in the
permanent dentition, and 6 of the 14 patients required aug-
mentation 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 graft-
ing is the decreasing ability to carry out pure skeletal segmen-
tal expansion once the alveolar cleft is repaired. Long (1995)
reported successful separation of the remaining interpremax-
illary 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 un-
successful, possibly related to early obliteration of the inter-
premaxillary suture in the bilateral condition (Delaire and Pre-
cious, 1986). Thus, it is critical to complete as much segment
expansion in the mixed dentition prior to bone grafting as pos-
sible.
Unfavorable Class III Skeletal Pattern
In spite of the improvements in facial growth results seen
in the past 60 years, Ross’s (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 approx-
imately 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, de-
pending on the individual center. While these percentages rep-
resent an improvement over the percentages that would have
been found in the 1940s and 1950s, they still represent a sig-
nificantly greater incidence than that found in the noncleft pop-
ulation (1%). Fortunately, the development of effective or-
thognathic surgical techniques in the 1970s and 1980s, men-
tioned 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 rel-
evant to orthodontic treatment planning relate to those evalu-
ating 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 non-
cleft 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-gen-
erated images (Gateno et al., 2000) have all improved the pre-
cision of surgical planning for hard tissue movements and the
predictability of soft tissue response. Although initially devel-
oped 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 or-
thognathic surgery versus distraction as the end-stage proce-
dure 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 sub-
ject, there has been little attempt to develop differential diag-
nostic and treatment planning criteria, which would identify
those maxillary deficient patients that would be best treated
with routine orthognathic surgery versus distraction osteogen-
esis.
SUMMARY
The progress and evolution of orthodontic treatment for pa-
tients 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 be-
cause of the failure by care providers to submit to the rigors
of established procedures for clinical trials (Pocock, 1983;

Roberts et al., 1991; Shaw et al., 1996). As a result, we find
ourselves today still debating the relative merits of different
treatment approaches (e.g., infant orthopedics, timing and se-
quencing of alveolar repair and orthodontic intervention) that
have been in existence for more than enough years to have
reached concrete conclusions by now had the appropriate doc-
umentation and protocols been carried out. It is singularly rep-
resentative of this problem that the debate over the relative
benefits of presurgical infant orthopedics, which was highlight-
ed by Pruzansky in 1964, has only recently been addressed
using a randomized control trial approach (Kuijpers-Jagtman
and Prahl, 1996; Kuijpers-Jagtman and Prahl-Andersen, 1997).
Nonetheless, in spite this history of slow and inefficient sci-
entific and clinical progress, review of the literature of the past
60 years does, in fact, reveal that progress has been made. The
preceding review has attempted to highlight the major mile-
stones in that progress and the very clear improvements that
have been made in cleft management in general and cleft or-
thodontic treatment in particular. It is also noteworthy that our
progress has been not only in the area of improved surgical
and orthodontic techniques but also relative to the scientific
weaknesses of past decades. The investigations of more recent
years seem to be moving in a direction of better documenta-
tion, stricter methodologies, longer-term follow-up, larger sam-
ple sizes, etc.
The research shortcomings of our orthodontic predecessors
can be partially overlooked because of the purely clinical na-
ture of their involvement at the time. However, it can no longer
be considered acceptable to engage in the orthodontic treat-
ment of patients with clefts, without considering clinical prac-
tice to be part of an ongoing critical evaluation, the results
from which should allow us to accelerate our rate of progress
in the future. Only by adopting a more critical approach will
protocols be defined that can achieve optimal outcomes while
minimizing the burden of the orthodontic treatment through
elimination of superfluous intervention.
REFERENCES
Åbyholm FE, Bergland O, Semb G. Secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts.
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;15:127–140.
Aduss H, Figueroa AA. Stages of orthodontic treatment in complete unilateral
cleft lip and palate. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Man-
agement of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:607–
615.
Aduss H, Pruzansky S. Width of cleft at level of the tuberosities in complete
unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1968;41:113–123.
American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association. Parameters for Evaluation and
Treatment of Patients with Cleft Lip/Palate or Other Craniofacial Anomalies.
Cleft Palate J. 1993;30(suppl 1).
Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Ahlquist R, Bayer T, Schwartz O. A long-
term study of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part I. Surgical procedures
and standardized techniques for monitoring healing. Eur J Orthod. 1990a;
12:3–13.
Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Bayer T, Schwartz O. A long-term study of
370 autotransplanted premolars. Part II. Tooth survival and pulp healing
subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod 1990b;12:14–24.
Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Schwartz O. A long-term study of 370
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-9
autotransplanted premolars. Part III. Periodontal healing subsequent to trans-
plantation. Eur J Orthod 1990c;12:25–37.
Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Bayer T. A long-term study of 370 auto-
transplanted premolars. Part IV. Root development subsequent to transplan-
tation. Eur J Orthod 1990d;12:38–50.
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;19:165–170.
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;25:181–185.
Bell WH. Biologic basis for maxillary osteotomies. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1973;
38:279–289.
Bell WH. LeFort I osteotomy for correction of maxillary deformities. J Oral
Surg. 1975;33:412–426.
Bergland O. Changes in cleft palate malocclusion after the introduction of im-
proved surgery. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1967;383–397.
Bergland O. Treatment of the cleft palate malocclusion in the mixed and per-
manent dentition. Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1973:571–574.
Bergland O, Semb G, Åbyholm FE. Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft
by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment. Cleft Pal-
ate J. 1986a;23:175–205.
Bergland O, Semb G, Åbyholm 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;17:460–474.
Bergland O, Sidhu SS. Occlusal changes from the deciduous to the early mixed
dentition in unilateral complete clefts. Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:317–326.
Berkowitz S. The complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: serial three-dimen-
sional studies of excellent palatal growth. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds.
Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB
Saunders; 1990:456–473.
Berkowitz S, Krischer J, Pruzansky S. Quantitative analysis of cleft palate casts.
Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:134–161.
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.
Bøhn A. Anomalies of the lateral incisor in cases of harelip and cleft palate.
Acta Odont Scand. 1950;9:41–59.
Bøhn A. Dental anomalies in harelip and cleft palate. Acta Odontol Scand.
1963;21:1–109.
Bokhout B, Hofman FX, van Limbeek J, Kramer GJ, Prahl-Andersen B. In-
creased caries prevalence in 2.5-year-old children with cleft lip and/or palate.
Eur J Oral Sci. 1996;104:518–522.
Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Combined orthodontic-surgical management of residual
palato-alveolar cleft defects. Amer J Orthod. 1976;70:20–37.
Boyne PJ, Sands NR. Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal
clefts. J Oral Surg. 1972;30:87–92.
Brauer RO, Cronin TD. Maxillary orthopedics and anterior palate repair with
bone grafting. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:31–42.
Braun TW, Sotereanos GC. Orthognathic and secondary cleft reconstruction of
adolescent patients with cleft palate. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:425–434.
Burston WR. Early orthodontic treatment of cleft palate conditions. Trans Br
Soc Orthod Dent Practit. 1958;9:41–56.
Buschang PH, Porter C, Genecov E, Genecov D, Salyer KE. Face mask therapy
of preadolescents with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Angle Orthod. 1994;
64:145–150.
Capelozza L Jr, Taniguchi SM, da Silva OG Jr. Craniofacial morphology of
adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Pal-
ate Craniofac J. 1993;30:376–381.
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; 1974:228–237.
Cooper HK. Cleft palate: dentistry’s opportunity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1951;42:
37–47.
Cooper HK. Crippled children? Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1942;28:35–38.
Cooper HK. Integration of services in the treatment of cleft lip and cleft palate.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1953;47:27–32.
533-10 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
Cooper HK, Long RE Sr, Long RE Jr, Pepek MJ. Orthodontics and oral ortho-
pedics. In: Cooper HK, Harding RL, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M, Millard
RT eds. Cleft Palate and Cleft Lip: A Team Approach to Clinical Manage-
ment and Rehabilitation of the Patient. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1979:
358–429.
Cutting CB, Bookstein FL, Grayson BH, Fellingham L, McCarthy JG. Three-
dimensional computer-assisted design of craniofacial surgical procedures:
optimization and interaction with cephalometrics and CT based models.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77:877–887.
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):1–167.
Delaire J. Considérations sur la croissance faciale en particulier du maxillaire
supérieur déductions thérapeutiques. Rev Stomatol. 1971;72:57–76.
Delaire J. Premiers resultats de la gingivo-periosto-plastie primaire (avec ou
sans osteo-plastie) In: Il trattamento chirurgico ed ortodontico della labio-
palatoschisi. La ricostruzione dell’equilibrio 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-Négréa A, Talmant J, Boisson M.
Quelques résultants des tractions extra-orales à appui fronto-mentonnier
dans le traitement orthopédique des malformations maxillo-mandibullaires
de classe III et des séquelles osseuses des fentes labio-maxillaires. Rev Sto-
matol Chir Maxillofac. 1972;73:633–642.
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;
19:9–16.
Enemark H, Bolund S, Jørgensen I. Evaluation of unilateral cleft lip and palate
treatment: longterm results. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:354–361.
Enemark H, Krantz-Simonsen E, Schramm JE. Secondary bonegrafting in uni-
lateral cleft lip palate patients: indications and treatment procedure. Int J
Oral Surg. 1985;14:2–10.
Enemark H, Sindet-Pedersen S, Bundgaard M. Long-term results after second-
ary 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;115:1–12.
Fishman LS. Dentistry’s responsibility to the cleft palate patient. NY State Dent
J. 1969;35:467–479.
Fishman LS. Factors related to tooth number, eruptiontime, and tooth position
in cleft palate individuals. ASCD J Dent Child. 1970;37:303–306.
Foster TD, Lavelle CLB. The size of the dentition in complete cleft lip and
palate. Cleft Palate J. 1971;8:177–184.
Friede H, Enemark H, Semb G, Paulin G, Åbyholm F, Bolund S, Lilja J, Østrup
L. Craniofacial and occlusal characteristics in unilateral cleft lip and palate
patients from four Scandinavian centres. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand
Surg. 1991;25:269–276.
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:
88–103.
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;
22:97–105.
Gateno J, Teichgraeber JH, Aguilar E. Computer planning for distraction os-
teogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:873–882.
Goldwyn RM. Simon P Hulllihen: pioneer oral and plastic surgeon. Plast Re-
constr Surg. 1973;52:250–257.
Graber TM. Craniofacial morphology in cleft palate and cleft lip deformities.
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1949;88:359–369.
Graber TM. The congenital cleft palate deformity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1954;48:
375–395.
Graf-Pinthus B, Bettex M. Maxillary segmental stability in cleft lip and palate
subjects. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7:54–58.
Grayson BH. Planning orthognathic surgery. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds.
Multidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB
Saunders; 1990:494–500.
Grayson BH, Santiago PE, Brecht LE, Cutting CB. Presurgical nasoalveolar
molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;
36:486–498.
Hall HD, Posnick JC. Early results of secondary bone grafts in 106 alveolar
clefts. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1983;41:289–294.
Harding RL, Mazaheri M. Growth and spatial changes in the arch form in
bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972;50:591–599.
Harkins CS. Principles of Cleft Palate Prosthesis. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press; 1960.
Harvold E. Cleft lip and palate: morphological studies of the facial skeleton.
Am J Orthod. 1954;40:493–506.
Harvold E. Observations on the development of the upper jaw by harelip and
cleft palate. Odontol Tidskr. 1947;55:289–305.
Harvold E. Prinsippene for den kjeveortopediske behandling av overkjeven med
ensidig total ganespalte. Nor Tannlægeforen Tid. 1949;59:395–416.
Heidbüchel KLWM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Freihofer HPM. Facial growth in
patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate: a cephalometric study. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1994;31:210–216.
Heidbüchel KLWM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Kramer GJC, 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;35:233–239.
Hellquist R, Pontén B. The influence of infant periosteoplasty on facial growth
and dental occlusion from five to eight years of age in cases of complete
unilateral cleft lip and palate. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;13:305–
312.
Helms JA, Speidel TM, Denis KL. Effect of timing on long-term clinical suc-
cess of alveolar cleft bone grafts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987;92:
232–240.
Hillerup S, Dahl E, Schwartz O, Hjörting-Hansen E. Tooth transplantation to
bone graft in cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:137–141.
Honda Y, Suzuki A, Ohishi M, Tashiro H. Longitudinal study on the changes
of maxillary arch dimensions in Japanese children with cleft lip and/or pal-
ate: infancy to 4 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:149–155.
Hotz MM. Pre- and early post-operative growth guidance in cleft lip and palate
cases by maxillary orthopedics (an alternative procedure to primary bone
grafting). Cleft Palate J. 1969;6:368–372.
Huddart AG. Presurgical dental orthopaedics. Trans Br Soc Orthod. 1961;107–
117.
Huddart AG. An analysis of the maxillary changes following pre-surgical dental
orthopaedic treatment in unilateral cleft lip and palate cases. Rep Congr Eur
Orthod Soc. 1967;299–314.
Huddart AG. An evaluation of pre-surgical treatment. British J Orthod. 1974;
1:21–25.
Ishiguro K, Krogman WM, Mazaheri M, Harding RL. A longitudinal study of
morphological craniofacial patterns via P-A x-ray headfilms in cleft patients
from birth to six years of age. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13:104–126.
Johanson B, Ohlsson Å. Bone grafting and dental orthopaedics in primary and
secondary cases of cleft lip and palate. Acta Chir Scand. 1961;122:112–
124.
Johanson B, Ohlsson Å, Friede H, Ahlgren J. A follow-up study of cleft lip
and palate patients treated with orthodontics, secondarybone grafting and
prosthetic rehabilitation. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974;8:121–135.
Jolleys A, Robertson NRE. A study of the effects of early bonegrafting in
complete clefts of the lip and palate—a five year study. Br J Plast Surg.
1972;25:229–237.
Jordan RE, Kraus BS, Neptune CM. Dental abnormalities associated with cleft
lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate J. 1966;3:22–55.
Kearns G, Perrott DH, Sharma A, Kaban LB, Vargervik K. Placement of en-
dosseous implants in grafted alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;
34:520–525.
Kjellgren B. Dental orthopaedic treatment combined with surgery. Trans Eur
Orthod Soc. 1949;164–175.
Kraus BS, Jordan RE, Pruzansky S. Dental abnormalities in the deciduous and
permanent dentitions of individuals with cleft lip and palate. J Dent Res.
1966;45:1736–1746.

Kremenak CR, Huffman WC, Olin WH. Growth of maxillae in dogs after
palatal surgery. Cleft Palate J. 1967;4:6–17.
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;
19:62–71.
Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Prahl C. A Study Into the Effects of Presurgical Ortho-
pedic Treatment in Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients. A
Three-Center Prospective Clinical Trial in Nijmegen, Amsterdam and Rot-
terdam. Interim Analysis. Nijmegen: University Press; 1996.
Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Prahl-Andersen B. Value of presurgical infant ortho-
pedics: an intercentre randomized clinical trial. In: Transactions 8th Inter-
national 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 prelim-
inary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17:227–233.
Levitt T, Long RE Jr, Trotman CA. Maxillary growth in patients with clefts
following secondary alveolar bone grafting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;
36:398–406.
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;37:98–105.
Lilja J, Möller 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;21:73–79.
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;32:213–219.
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, Mc-
Namara JA Jr, eds. Orthodontic Treatment: Outcome and Effectiveness,
Monograph 30. Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Hu-
man Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1995:271–295.
Long RE Jr. The clefting condition. In: McKinstry R, ed. Cleft Palate Dentistry.
Arlington, VA: ABI Professional Publications; 1998:1–33.
Long RE Jr, McNamara JA. Facial growth following pharyngeal flap surgery:
skeletal assessment on serial lateral cephalometric radiograms. Am J Orthod.
1985;87:187–196.
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;33:225–230.
Long RE Jr, Spangler BE, Yow M. Cleft width and secondary alveolar bone
graft success. Cleft Palate J. 1995;32:420–427.
Mars M, Asher-McDade C, Brattström V, Dahl E, McWilliam J, Mølsted 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;
29:405–408.
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;27:7–10.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJB, Bergland O, Semb G. The Golson Yardstick:
a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilat-
eral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:314–322.
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;36:391–397.
Mazaheri M, Athanasiou AE, Long RE Jr, Kolokitha OG. Evaluation of max-
illary dental arch form in unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate from
one month to four years. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:90–93.
Mazaheri M, Harding RL, Cooper JA, Meier JA, Jones TS. Changes in arch
form and dimensions of cleft patients. Am J Orthod. 1971;60:19–32.
Mazaheri M, Harding RL, Nanda S. The effects of surgery on maxillary growth
and cleft width. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1967;40:22–30.
McCance AM, Roberts-Harry D, Sherriff M, Mars M, Houston WJB. A study
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-11
model analysis of adult unoperated Sri Lankans with unilateral cleft lip and
palate. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:146–154.
McNeil CK. Orthodontic procedures in the treatment of congenital cleft palate.
Dent Rec. 1950;70:126–132.
Mestre JC, DeJesus J, Subtelny JD. Unoperated oral clefts at maturation. Angle
Orthod. 1960;30:78–85.
Millard DR Jr. Cleft Craft: The evolution of Its Surgery. Vol. 3. Boston: Little,
Brown; 1980:285–298.
Molina F. Esthetic and functional benefits in cleft and prognathic patients during
the mixed dentition. In: McNamara JA, Trotman CA, eds. Distraction Os-
teogenesis and Tissue Engineering. Monograph 34. Craniofacial Growth
Series. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth and Development, Uni-
versity of Michigan; 1998:37–41.
Mølsted K, Asher-McDade C, Brattström 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;29:398–404.
Nordin K-E. Treatment of primary total cleft palate deformity. Preoperative
orthopedic correction of the displaced components of the upper jaw in in-
fants followed by bone grafting to the alveolar process clefts. Trans Eur
Orthod Soc. 1957:333–339.
Nordquist GG, McNeill RW. Orthodontic vs. restorative treatment of the con-
genitally absent lateral incisor: long term periodontal and occlusal evalua-
tion. J Periodontol. 1975;46:139–143.
Obwegeser HL. Surgery as an adjunct to orthodontics in normal and cleft palate
patients. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1966;42:343–353.
Obwegeser HL. Surgical correction of small or retrodisplaced maxillae. The
‘‘dish-face’’ deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;43:351–365.
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;26:21–30.
Olin, WH. Cleft lip and palate rehabilitation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thom-
as, 1960.
Olin, WH. Cleft lip and palate rehabilitation. Am J Orthod. 1966;52:126–144.
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; 1990:649–662.
Ortiz-Monasterio F, Rebeh AS, Valderrama M, Cruz R. Cephalometric mea-
surements on adult patients with nonoperated cleft palates. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 1959;2453–2461.
Paulin G, Åstrand P, Rosenquist JB, Bartholdson L. Intermediate bone grafting
of alveolar clefts. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1988;16:2–7.
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;25:63–72.
Peterka M, Müllerova Z. Tooth size in children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1983;20:307–313.
Pierce G, Terwilliger K, Pennisi Jr Y, Klabunde H. Early orthodontic treatment
in cleft palate children. Angle Orthod. 1956;26:110–120.
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;14:123–127.
Posnick JC, Ewing MP. Skeletal stability after LeFort I maxillary advancement
in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;
85:706–710.
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; 1990:530–543.
Pruzansky S. Factors determining arch form in clefts of the lip and palate. Am
J Orthod. 1955;41:827–851.
Pruzansky S. Presurgical orthopedics and bone grafting for infants with clefts
of the lip and palate: a dissent. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:164–187.
Pruzansky S. The role of the orthodontist in a cleft palate team. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 1954;14:10–29.
533-12 Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, November 2000, Vol. 37 No. 6
Pruzansky S, Aduss H. Arch form and the deciduous occlusion in complete
unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:411–418.
Ramstad T. Fixed prosthodontics in cleft palate. In: McKinstry R, ed. Cleft
Palate Dentistry. Arlington, VA: ABI Professional Publications; 1998:236–
262.
Ramstad T, Semb G. The effect of alveolar bone grafting on the prosthodontic/
reconstructive treatment of patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and
palate. Int J Prosthodont. 1997;10:156–163.
Ranta R. A review of tooth formation in children with cleft lip/palate. Am J
Orthod. 1986;90:11–18.
Ranta R. Development course of 27 late-developing second premolars. Proc
Finn Dent Soc. 1983;79:9–12.
Ranta R. Orthodontic treatment alternatives for unilateral cleft lip and palate
patients. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Multidisciplinary Management of
Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1990:637–641.
Ranta R. The development of the permanent teeth in children with complete
cleft lip and palate. Proc Finn Dent Soc. 1972;68(suppl 3).
Rehrmann AH, Koberg WR, Koch H. Long-term postoperative results of pri-
mary and secondary bone grafting in complete clefts of lip and palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1970;7:206–221.
Ricketts RM. Oral orthopedics for the cleft palate patient. Am J Orthod. 1956;
42:401–408.
Roberts CT, Semb G, Shaw WC. Strategies for the advancement of surgical
methods in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:141–149.
Robertson NRE, Hilton R. The changes produced by pre-surgical oral ortho-
paedics. Br J Plast Surg. 1971;24:57–68.
Rosenstein SW. A new concept in the early orthopedic treatment of cleft lip
and palate. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:765–775.
Rosenstein SW. Early orthodontic procedures for cleft lip and palate individuals.
Angle Orthod. 1963;33:127–137.
Rosenstein SW, Jacobson BN, Monroe C, Griffith BH, McKinney P. A series
of cleft lip and palate children five years after undergoing orthopedic and
bone grafting procedures. Angle Orthod. 1972;42:1–8.
Rosenstein SW, Monroe CW, Kernahan DA, Jacobson BN, Griffith BH, Bauer
BS. The case for early bone grafting in cleft lip and cleft palate. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1982;70: 297–307–309.
Ross RB. The management of dental arch deformity in cleft lip and palate.
Clin Plast Surg. 1975;2:325–342.
Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral
cleft lip and palate. Part 1: treatment affecting growth. Cleft Palate J. 1987a;
24:5–23.
Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral
cleft lip and palate. Part 2: presurgical orthopedics. Cleft Palate J. 1987b;
24:24–30.
Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral
cleft lip and palate. Part 3: alveolus repair and bone grafting. Cleft Palate
J. 1987c;24:33–44.
Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral
cleft lip and palate. Part 7: an overview of treatment and facial growth. Cleft
Palate J. 1987d;71–77.
Ross RB, Johnston MC. Cleft Lip and Palate. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins;
1972.
Ross RB, Johnston MC. The effect of early orthodontic treatment on facial
growth in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1967;4:157–164.
Ross RB, MacNamera MC. Effect of presurgical infant orthopedics on facial
esthetics in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
1994;31:68–73.
Rygh P, Tindlund RS. Early considerations in the orthodontic management of
skeletodental discrepancies. In: Turvey TA, Vig KWL, Fonseca RJ, eds.
Facial Clefts and Craniosynostosis. Principles and Management. Philadel-
phia: WB Saunders; 1996:234–319.
Rygh P, Tindlund RS. Orthopedic expansion and protraction of the maxilla in
cleft palate patients—a new treatment rationale. Cleft Palate J. 1982;19:
104–112.
Sandy JR, Williams AC, Bearn D, Mildenhall S, Murphy T, Sell D, Muray JJ,
Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom (UK)—The
Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study: part 1—background and
methodology. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. In press.
Santiago PE, Grayson BH, Cutting CB, Gianoutsos MP, Brecht LE, Kwon SM.
Reduced need for alveolar bone grafting by presurgical orthopedics and
primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:77–81.
Sarnäs KV, Rune B. Extraoral traction to the maxilla with face mask: a follow-
up of 17 consecutively treated patients with and without cleft lip and palate.
Cleft Palate J. 1987;24:95–103.
Sarver DM, Johnston MW, Matuka VJ. Video imaging for planning and coun-
seling in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;46:939–945.
Schendel S, Delaire J. Functional musculoskeletal correction of secondary uni-
lateral cleft lip deformities: combined lip-nose correction and LeFort I os-
teotomy. J Maxillofac Surg. 1981;9:108–116.
Schwartz BH, Long RE Jr , Smith RJ, Gipe DP. Early prediction of posterior
crossbite in the complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1984;
21:76–81.
Schwartz O, Bergmann P, Klausen B. Autotransplantation of human teeth. A
life table analysis of prognostic factors. Int J Oral Surg. 1985a;14:245–258.
Schwartz O, Bergmann P, Klausen B. Resorption of autotransplanted human
teeth: a retrospective study of 291 transplantations over a period of 25 years.
Int Endod J. 1985b;18:119–131.
Semb G. A study of facial growth in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate
treated by the Oslo CLP team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991a;28:22–39.
Semb G. A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate
treated by the Oslo CLP team. Cleft Palate Craniofac. 1991b;28:1–21.
Semb G. Effect of alveolar bone grafting on maxillary growth in unilateral cleft
lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate J. 1988;25:288–295.
Semb G. Longterm evaluation of alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate.
In: Booij, ed. Studyweek 1990 Nederlandse vereniging voor Orthodontische
Studie. 1990;276–293.
Semb G, Schwartz O. The impacted tooth in patients with alveolar clefts. In:
Andreasen JO, Petersen JK, Laskin DM, eds. Textbook and Color Atlas of
Tooth Impaction. Munksgaard, 1997:331–348.
Semb G, Shaw WC. Facial growth after different methods of surgical inter-
vention in patients with cleft lip and palate. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998;56:
352–355.
Semb G, Shaw WC. Facial growth in orofacial clefting disorders. In: Turvey
TA, Vig KWL, Fonseca RJ, eds. Facial Clefts and Craniosynostosis. Prin-
ciples and Management. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:28–56.
Semb G, Shaw WC. Orthodontics. In: Watson ACH, Grunwell P, Sell D, eds.
Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Whurr Publisher, 2000.
Shaw WC, Asher-McDade C, Brattström V, Dahl E, McWilliam J, Mølsted K,
Plint DA, Prahl-Andersen B, Semb G, the RPS. A six-center international
study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part
1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992a;29:393–397.
Shaw WC, Dahl E, Asher-McDade C, Brattström V, Mars M, McWilliam J,
Mølsted K, Plint DA, Prahl-Andersen B, Roberts C, Semb G, the RPS. A
six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of
the lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1992b;29:413–418.
Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Semb G. Evaluating treatment alternatives: measure-
ment and design. In: Turvey TA, Vig KWL, Fonseca RJ, eds. Facial Clefts
and Craniosynostosis. Principles and Management. Philadelphia: WB Saun-
ders; 1996:756–766.
Shaw WC, Semb G, Nelson P, Brattström V, Mølsted K, Prahl-Andersen B.
The Eurocleft Project 1996–2000. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2000.
da Silva OG Jr, Normando ADC, Capelozza L Jr. Mandibular morphology and
spatial position in patients with clefts: intrinsic or iatrogenic? Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1992;29:369–375.
Silva Filho OG, Normando ADC, Capelozza Filho L. Mandibular growth in
patients with cleft lip and/or cleft palate—the influence of cleft type. Am J
Orthod Dentofac Orthod. 1993;104:269–275.
Sinclair PM, Kilpelainen P, Phillips C, White RP Jr, Rogers L, Sarver DM. The
accuracy of video imaging in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop. 1995;107:177–185.
Sindet-Pedersen S, Enemark H. Comparative study of secondary and late sec-

ondary bone-grafting in patients with residual cleft defects. Short-term eval-
uation. Int J Oral Surg. 1985;14:389–398.
Sindet-Pedersen S, Enemark H. Management of impacted teeth in congenital
clefts. In: Alling CC, Helfrick JF, Alling RD, eds. Impacted Teeth. Phila-
delphia: WB Saunders; 1993:344–352.
Skoog T. The use of periosteal flaps in the repair of clefts of the primary palate.
Cleft Palate J. 1965;2:332–339.
Slaughter WB, Brodie AG. Facial clefts and their surgical management in view
of recent research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1949;4:203–224.
Šmahel Z, Müllerova Ž. 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;31:106–115.
Solis A, Figueroa AA, Cohen M, Polley JW, Evans CA. Maxillary dental de-
velopment in complete unilateral alveolar clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
1998;35:320–328.
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;10:113–165.
Stoelinga PJ, Vijver HR, Leenen RJ, Blidorp PA, Schoenaers JH. The preven-
tion of relapse after maxillary osteotomies in cleft palate patients. J Cran-
iomaxillofac Surg. 1987;15:326–331.
Subtelny JD. Oral respiration: facial maldevelopment and corrective dentofacial
orthopedics. Angle Orthod. 1980;50:147–164.
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; 1990:615–636.
Subtelny JD. Orthodontic treatment of cleft lip and palate, birth to adulthood.
Angle Orthod. 1966;36:273–292.
Subtelny JD. The importance of early orthodontic treatment in cleft palate plan-
ning. Angle Orthod. 1957;27:148–158.
Subtelny JD. Width of the nasopharynx and related anatomic structures in nor-
mal and cleft palate children. Am J Orthod. 1955;40:889–909.
Subtelny JD, Brodie A. An analysis of orthodontic expansion in unilateral cleft
lip and cleft palate patients. Am J Orthod. 1954;40:686–697.
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;
29:380–384.
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:
268–271.
Tideman H, Stoelinga P, Gallia L. LeFort I advancement with segmental oste-
otomies in patients with cleft palates. J Oral Surg. 1980;38:196–199.
Tindlund RS. Orthopaedic protraction of the midface in the deciduous dentition.
Results covering 3 years out of treatment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg Suppl.
1 1989;17:17–19.
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-
Long et al., ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT 533-13
phology in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 1993;30:208–221.
Tindlund RS, Rygh P, Bøe 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;30:182–194.
Trotman CA, Ross RB. Craniofacial growth in bilateral cleft lip and palate:
ages six years to adulthood. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:261–273.
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;33:91–95.
Troxell JB, Fonseca RJ, Osbon DB. A retrospective study of alveolar cleft
grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1982;40:721–725.
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. Phil-
adelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:441–503.
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;86:244–256.
Vargervik K. New bone formation secured by oriented stress in maxillary clefts.
Cleft Palate J. 1978;15:132–140.
Vargervik K. Orthodontic management of unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1981;18:256–270.
Vargervik K. Orthodontic treatment of cleft patients: characteristics of growth
and development/treatment principles. In: Bardach J, Morris HL, eds. Mul-
tidisciplinary Management of Cleft Lip and Palate. Philadelphia: WB Saun-
ders; 1990:642–649.
Verdi FJ, Lanzi GL, Cohen SR, Powell R. Use of the Branemark implant in
the cleft palate patient. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:301–304.
Vig KWL, Turvey TA. Orthodontic-surgical interaction in the management of
cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 1985;12:735–748.
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 Man-
agement. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1996:396–440.
Waite DE, Kersten RB. Residual alveolar and palatal clefts. In: Bell WH, Proffit
WR, White RP, eds. Surgical Correction of Dentofacial Deformities. Phil-
adelphia: WB Saunders; 1980:1329–1367.
Waldrop RW, Wolford LM. Maxillary stability following downgraft and/or ad-
vancement procedures with stabilization using rigid fixation and porous
block hydroxyapatitie implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;47:336–342.
Westbrook MT Jr, West RA, McNeill RW. Simultaneous maxillary advancement
and closure of bilateral alveolar clefts and oronasal fistulas. J Oral Maxil-
lofac Surg. 1983;41:257–260.
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; 1998:139–193.
Wood RJ, Grayson BH, Cutting CB. Gingivoperiosteoplasty and midfacial
growth. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34:17–20.