A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla
Objectives: To compare cleft lip and palate patients’ satisfaction with aesthetics and functional parameters after conventional advancement of the maxilla or by the use of distraction osteogenesis.Material and methods: Case series observational study. Group of distraction osteogenesis (DO) consisted...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Odontology
2012-06-01
|
| Series: | eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2012/2/e3/v3n2e3ht.htm |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849700481493893120 |
|---|---|
| author | Kristian Andersen Sven Erik Nørholt Annelise Küseler John Jensen Thomas Klit Pedersen |
| author_facet | Kristian Andersen Sven Erik Nørholt Annelise Küseler John Jensen Thomas Klit Pedersen |
| author_sort | Kristian Andersen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: To compare cleft lip and palate patients’ satisfaction with aesthetics and functional parameters after conventional advancement of the maxilla or by the use of distraction osteogenesis.Material and methods: Case series observational study. Group of distraction osteogenesis (DO) consisted of 15 patients treated with distraction osteogenesis while group conventional (CONV) included 10 patients treated with traditional advancement of the maxilla. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their subjective evaluation of satisfaction with facial aesthetics and functional parameters on a continuous visual analog-scale (VAS) when the treatment was finished.Results: The total response rate was 76%. Preoperatively the two groups did not differ significantly according to group characteristics. At follow-up both groups were satisfied with aesthetics and functional parameters. The DO group was less satisfied with the duration of the treatment than the CONV group. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups regarding functional parameters or facial aesthetics.Conclusions: Cleft lip and palate patients experienced a high level of satisfaction with functional parameters and aesthetics as a result of surgical maxillary advancement. The patients treated with distraction osteogenesis were less satisfied with the duration of the treatment. Further studies are needed. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-dff60de74b22447dad1c776aaa105032 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2029-283X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-06-01 |
| publisher | Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Odontology |
| record_format | Article |
| series | eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-dff60de74b22447dad1c776aaa1050322025-08-20T03:18:15ZengLithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of OdontologyeJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research2029-283X2012-06-0132e3A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the MaxillaKristian AndersenSven Erik NørholtAnnelise KüselerJohn JensenThomas Klit PedersenObjectives: To compare cleft lip and palate patients’ satisfaction with aesthetics and functional parameters after conventional advancement of the maxilla or by the use of distraction osteogenesis.Material and methods: Case series observational study. Group of distraction osteogenesis (DO) consisted of 15 patients treated with distraction osteogenesis while group conventional (CONV) included 10 patients treated with traditional advancement of the maxilla. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their subjective evaluation of satisfaction with facial aesthetics and functional parameters on a continuous visual analog-scale (VAS) when the treatment was finished.Results: The total response rate was 76%. Preoperatively the two groups did not differ significantly according to group characteristics. At follow-up both groups were satisfied with aesthetics and functional parameters. The DO group was less satisfied with the duration of the treatment than the CONV group. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups regarding functional parameters or facial aesthetics.Conclusions: Cleft lip and palate patients experienced a high level of satisfaction with functional parameters and aesthetics as a result of surgical maxillary advancement. The patients treated with distraction osteogenesis were less satisfied with the duration of the treatment. Further studies are needed.http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2012/2/e3/v3n2e3ht.htmdistraction osteogenesisquality of lifecleft lipcleft palateLe Fort osteotomy |
| spellingShingle | Kristian Andersen Sven Erik Nørholt Annelise Küseler John Jensen Thomas Klit Pedersen A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research distraction osteogenesis quality of life cleft lip cleft palate Le Fort osteotomy |
| title | A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla |
| title_full | A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla |
| title_fullStr | A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla |
| title_short | A Retrospective Study of Cleft lip and palate Patients´ Satisfaction after Maxillary Distraction or Traditional Advancement of the Maxilla |
| title_sort | retrospective study of cleft lip and palate patients´ satisfaction after maxillary distraction or traditional advancement of the maxilla |
| topic | distraction osteogenesis quality of life cleft lip cleft palate Le Fort osteotomy |
| url | http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2012/2/e3/v3n2e3ht.htm |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kristianandersen aretrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT sveneriknørholt aretrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT annelisekuseler aretrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT johnjensen aretrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT thomasklitpedersen aretrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT kristianandersen retrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT sveneriknørholt retrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT annelisekuseler retrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT johnjensen retrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla AT thomasklitpedersen retrospectivestudyofcleftlipandpalatepatientssatisfactionaftermaxillarydistractionortraditionaladvancementofthemaxilla |