Clinical grading system for submucous cleft palate

Speech and language characteristics in individuals with nonsyndromic submucous cleft palate—A systematic review

“…The absence of randomized controlled trials and reliance on cohort or case study methodology is in line with previous systematic reviews and surveys in the area of cleft lip and palate (de Ladeira & Alonso, 2012;Gilleard et al, 2014;Karri, 2006 (Dixon, Marazita, Beaty, & Murray, 2011;Smyth, 2014;Sommerlad et al, 2004).…”

“…Although this distinction was important to determine the isolated impact of SMCP, it limited the number of studies that could be included. Precise descriptions of SMCP and nonsyndromic diagnoses are becoming increasingly significant as contemporary definitions and grading systems continue to evolve (Dixon, Marazita, Beaty, & Murray, ; Smyth, ; Sommerlad et al, ).…”

Submucous cleft palate: outcomes after primary repair with repositioning of the levator muscle in 51 consecutive patients

“…The clinical grade was calculated using a previously described system. 12 Speech was assessed preoperatively and one year postoperatively by a specialist cleft speech and language therapist. Hypernasality and nasal emissions were assessed using the Great Ormond Street Speech Assessment 13 and scored on a five-point scale: 0 = normal, 0-1 = mild and inconsistent, 1 = mild and consistent, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe.…”

A Pitfall in Prenatal Ultrasonic Detection of Submucous Cleft Palate

“…The bony notch in the posterior end of the hard palate associated with SMCP is hidden under the mucosa, and the soft palate looks normal or has only a bifid uvula or a congenital fistula. 13 Therefore, both postnatal and postmortem, the oral difference between SMCP and normal anatomy is challenging to observe. Even for professional stomatologists, it is difficult to assess the extent of the bone involvement.…”