The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is any difference in the diagnostic information provided by conventional two-dimensional (2D) images or by three-dimensional (3D) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in subjects with unerupted maxillary canines. Twenty-seven patients (17 females and 10 males, mean age 11.8 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment with 39 impacted or retained maxillary canines were included. For each canine, two different digital image sets were obtained: (1) A 2D image set including a panoramic radiograph, a lateral cephalogram, and the available periapical radiographs with different projections and (2) A 3D image set obtained with CBCT. Both sets of images were submitted, in a single-blind randomized order, to eight dentists. A questionnaire was used to assess the position of the canine, the presence of root resorption, the difficulty of the case, treatment choice options, and the quality of the images. Data analysis was performed using the McNemar-Bowker test for paired data, Kappa statistics, and paired t-tests. The findings demonstrated a difference in the localization of the impacted canines between the two techniques, which can be explained by factors affecting the conventional 2D radiographs such as distortion, magnification, and superimposition of anatomical structures situated in different planes of space. The increased precision in the localization of the canines and the improved estimation of the space conditions in the arch obtained with CBCT resulted in a difference in diagnosis and treatment planning towards a more clinically orientated approach.

The method offers valid and reproducible 3-D assessment of cleft size and morphology. 3-D infant cleft severity ratio can be used as baseline value for surgical planning and may have a role in predicting dentofacial development.

Objectives To assess the impact of cleft severity and timing of hard palate repair on palatal dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) children. Setting and sample population Single‐centre analysis within a multicenter RCT of primary surgery; 122 UCLP randomized to early hard palate closure (EHPC) at 12 months or delayed hard palate closure (DHPC) at 36 months; 28 frequency‐matched controls. Methods Linear measurements of palatal height, width and length were performed on 116 digital models of UCLP subjects (8.21 years, SD = 0.53) and 28 models of non‐cleft individuals (8.44 years SD = 0.72). Cleft dimensions at infancy (mean 1.8 months) were considered. In a pilot study, shell‐to‐shell distances between the 3D cleft palate objects and a reference mesh were calculated and differences between the groups assessed. Morphological differences were visualized using colour mapping. Results Compared to controls, UCLP subjects presented a higher palate at the level of the anterior scar (P = 0.002), but generally a lower palate in the middle region (P < 0.001). Comparing UCLP subgroups, the DHPC subjects showed a flatter palate posteriorly (P = 0.048) and the EHPC group exhibited more transversal constriction (P = 0.003 at M1 level). 3D analysis revealed a shallower palate in the DHPC group both in the middle (P = 0.002) and the posterior part (P = 0.008). Anterior cleft severity correlated negatively with palatal height (P = 0.01). Conclusions Unilateral cleft lip and palate palates differ from controls in width and height. DHPC may represent an advantage for the transversal dimension, but a disadvantage for palatal height. Infant cleft dimensions partially explain differences in palatal height.

Aim: To investigate whether infant cleft dimensions, in a surgical protocol with early or delayed hard palate closure, influence occlusion before orthodontics. Design: Subgroup analysis within a randomized trial of primary surgery (Scandcleft). Setting: Tertiary health care. One surgical centre. Patients and Methods: A total of 122 unilateral cleft lip and palate infants received primary cheilo-rhinoplasty and soft palate closure at age 4 months and were randomized for hard palate closure at age 12 versus 36 months. A novel 3D analysis of cleft size and morphology was performed on digitized presurgical models. Occlusion was scored on 8-year models using the modified Huddarth–Bodenham (MHB) Index and the Goslon Yardstick. Main Outcome Measurements: Differences in MHB and Goslon scores among the 2 surgical groups adjusted for cleft size. Results: The crude analysis showed no difference between the 2 surgical groups in Goslon scores but a better MHB ( P = .006) for the group who received delayed hard palate closure. When adjusting for the ratio between cleft surface and palatal surface (3D Infant Cleft Severity Ratio) and for posterior cleft dimensions at tuberosity level, the delayed hard palate closure group received 3.65 points better for MHB (confidence interval: 1.81; 5.48; P < .001) and showed a trend for reduced risk of receiving a Goslon of 4 or 5 ( P = .052). For posterior clefts larger than 9 mm, the Goslon score was better in the delayed hard palate closure group ( P = .033). Conclusions: Seen from an orthodontic perspective, when the soft palate is closed first, and the cleft is large, the timing of hard palate closure should be planned in relation to posterior cleft size.