Facial profile esthetics in operated children with bilateral cleft lip and palate

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the facial profile esthetics of rehabilitated children with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), comparing the judgment of professionals related and not related to cleft rehabilitation and laypersons. Methods:Thirty children in the mixed dentition (24 male; 6 female) with a mean age of 7.8 years were evaluated using facial profile photographs by 25 examiners: 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons with experience in cleft care, 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons without experience in oral cleft rehabilitation and 5 graduated laymen. Their facial profiles were classified into esthetically unpleasant (grade 1 to 3), esthetically acceptable (grade 4 to 6), and esthetically pleasant (grade 7 to 9). Intraexaminer and interexaminer errors were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficient and Kendall’s test, respectively. Inter-rater differences were analyzed using Friedman test and Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons. Results: Orthodontists dealing with oral clefts rehabilitation considered the majority of the sample as esthetically pleasant. Plastic surgeons of the cleft team and laypersons classified most of the sample as esthetically acceptable. Most of the orthodontists and plastic surgeons not related to cleft care evaluated the facial profile as esthetically unpleasant. The structures associated to unpleasant profiles were the nose, the midface and the upper lip. Conclusions: The facial profile of children with BCLP was classified as esthetically acceptable by laypersons. Professionals related to cleft rehabilitation were more lenient and those not related to cleft care were stricter to facial esthetics than laypersons.

The use of hyaluronic acid in individuals with cleft lip and palate: Literature review

“…Lauris et al evaluated the esthetics of the facial profile of children rehabilitated with CLP, comparing the judgment of professionals related and unrelated to the rehabilitation of clefts and laypeople, and the results revealed that professionals related to cleft rehabilitation were kinder and those unrelated to cleft treatment were stricter about facial esthetics than laypeople. [12] In the studies by Alhayek et al and the professionals were more satisfied than laypeople, corroborating that there are differences in perception between health professionals and laypeople, and the discrepancies between professional groups can be attributed to different treatment modalities and protocols. [13,14] According to Papamanou et al (2012), this can be explained as a result of the education and experience of specialists, which can lead to an assessment of facial From the perspective of parents and patients, low satisfaction with esthetics was correlated with the increase in self-reported influence of the cleft on the social activity and professional life of patients, as well as their high expectations with the results.…”

Orthodontic treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate associated with maxillary canine/premolar transposition: case report

“…Absence of the lateral incisor is often associated with cleft lip and palate, and the orthodontist along with the rehabilitation team should define the best treatment option in this region. 1,2,[4][5][6]18 Even after a successful secondary graft in the cleft region, there is a tendency to remain a vertical defect in this region, which in most situations contraindicates rehabilitation through implant and prosthesis. 2,5,19 In addition, implant and prosthesis rehabilitation in the long term tends to have a greater aesthetic compromise due to non-vertical physiological migration of the implant, which would imply the need for a new rehabilitation to original article Souza RM, Oliveira HT, Farret MM restore vertical symmetry in this region.…”

Photogrammetric Evaluation of Soft Tissue Profile and Frontal Photographs in Repaired Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

“…Considering the multifactorial nature of facial attractiveness, its assessment is a complex task and cannot be quantified by a simple measurement. Complete BCLP represents the most severe subtype of oral clefts and accounts for 14% of all types of oral clefts (Lauris et al, 2017). Bilateral CLP causes serious esthetical, functional, anatomic, and psychosocial disorders, a substantial challenge for its surgical and clinical management (Lauris et al, 2017).…”

“…Complete BCLP represents the most severe subtype of oral clefts and accounts for 14% of all types of oral clefts (Lauris et al, 2017). Bilateral CLP causes serious esthetical, functional, anatomic, and psychosocial disorders, a substantial challenge for its surgical and clinical management (Lauris et al, 2017). Several studies have evaluated soft tissue morphology in patients with CLP.…”