Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique

Ito, Shizuyo; Noguchi, Makoto; Suda, Yoshiyuki; Yamaguchi, Akira; Kohama, Gen–iku; Yamamoto, Etsuhide

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2005.11.006

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A cleft palate is surgically closed to restore the integrity of the oral and nasal cavity, and to allow for normal feeding and speech. The primary repair of a cleft palate generally leaves lateral open wounds, causing wound contraction and scar formation (Kremenak et al, 1970;Wijdeveld et al, 1991;Pigott et al, 2002), although in a supraperiosteal flap technique, the bone remains covered (Ito et al, 2006). In either event, surgery impairs the growth and development of the dento-maxillary complex (Wijdeveld et al, 1991;Ross, 1995;Mølsted, 1999), which may require additional surgical and orthodontic intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft Palate Cells Can Regenerate a Palatal Mucosa in vitro

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleft palate repair leaves full-thickness mucosal defects on the palate. Healing might be improved by implantation of a mucosal substitute. However, the genetic and phenotypic deviations of cleft palate cells may hamper tissue engineering. The aim of this study was to construct mucosal substitutes from cleft palate cells, and to compare these with substitutes from normal palatal cells, and with native palatal mucosa. Biopsies from the palatal mucosa of eight children with cleft palate and eight age-matched control individuals were taken. Three biopsies of both groups were processed for (immuno)histochemistry; 5 were used to culture mucosal substitutes. Histology showed that the substitutes from cleft-palate and non-cleft-palate cells were comparable, but the number of cell layers was less than in native palatal mucosa. All epithelial layers in native palatal mucosa and mucosal substitutes expressed the cytokeratins 5, 10, and 16, and the proliferation marker Ki67. Heparan sulphate and decorin were present in the basal membrane and the underlying connective tissue, respectively. We conclude that mucosal cells from children with cleft palate can regenerate an oral mucosa in vitro.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft Palate Cells Can Regenerate a Palatal Mucosa in vitro

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, in the selected studies, the subjects were analyzed by professionals clinically experienced in the field. The criteria for intelligibility, articulation disorders, phoneme production distortions, nasal air escape and hypernasality were some of the variables used to measure the outcome of speech [9][10][11][12][13][14] . It may be influenced by palate reconstruction, a.k.a.…”

Section: Speech and Palatoplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjects with CP may have unintelligible speech, distortion when producing phonemes, nasal air escapes, velopharyngeal inadequacy (due to insufficiency or incompetence), hypernasality (excessive resonance in the nasal cavity), glottal stop (plosion of the glottis when producing phonemes), among others [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . Such conditions may affect the social interaction of these people, hindering their communication of ideas and feelings 7 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ito S, Noguchi M, Suda Y et al 10 Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique. To assess and compare the shape of the maxillary dental arch and speech in subjects with CP who underwent pushback palatoplasty, using the supraperiosteal flap technique or the mucoperiosteal flap technique.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of palatoplasty on speech, dental occlusion issues and upper dental arch in children and adolescents with cleft palate: an integrative literature review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: to compile acquired knowledge related to speech, maxillary growth, dental arch and dental occlusion issues of subjects with cleft palate (associated or not with cleft lip), relating them to the found structural and morphological changes, along with time of surgery and surgical technique employed in palatoplasty. Methods: a search was carried out on four databases, namely: PubMed, SciELO, LILACS and MEDLINE, between May and August, 2018. The following descriptors, in Portuguese and in their corresponding terms in English, were used: cleft palate, speech, oral surgery or palatoplasty, teeth or dental arch. Results: altogether, 92 articles were found in the four databases. Eleven articles met the established selection criteria, thus, included in this review. According to the findings, the palatoplasty surgical technique influences speech, maxillary growth and dental occlusal issues; however, it is still unclear which technique is more beneficial to the subjects with cleft palate. Conclusion: results found in these 11 studies are divergent in regard to the surgical technique which most favors the development of speech, dental arches and maxillary growth. Therefore, it is important that new researches be carried out relating the aspects of speech, facial growth, dental occlusion and dental arch in the subjects with cleft palate, to the technique and the time of palatoplasty.

show abstract

“…These two techniques preserve the periosteum in the palatal lateral excisions area, avoid the denudation of bone, and prevent Sharpey's fibers attachment (Leenstra et al, 1995a). Comparing the mucoperiosteal technique with the partially split flap technique in cleft palate patients, researchers found that the partially split flap technique can prevent construction of the dental arch efficiently (Leenstra et al, 1996;Noguchi et al, 2003), and that the speech evaluation, dental arch shape and velopharyngeal function were more advantageous (Ito et al, 2006;Vander Poorten et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different types of palatal lateral excisions on growth and development of maxilla and dental arch

Zheng

Shi

et al. 2008

J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to explore the effects of different types of palatal lateral excisions on the growth and development of the maxilla and dental arch, and to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Methods: A total of 112 3-week-old Sprague-Dawley (SD) male rats were randomly divided into a control and 3 experimental groups: the mucoperiosteal denudation group, the mucosal flap excision group, and the periosteum excision group. In the experimental groups, bilateral mucoperiosteal, mucosal flap and periosteum were excised respectively in the lateral one half of the palate. Four rats in each group were randomly chosen for sacrifice every two weeks. The maxilla was dissected following the excision. The widths of the maxilla and dental arch were measured and the histological phenomena were investigated at different phases. At the same time, 12 animals in each group were sequentially injected with calcein every two weeks. Three animals in each group, whose fluorescent labeling was used, were sacrificed for investigating bone formation at Week 8 following injection. Results: (1) Each experimental group presented the constriction of the maxilla and dental arch. The upper first molars in the experimental groups inclined medially. The mucoperiosteal denudation group showed the largest degree of effect followed by the periosteum excision group. The indices of the mucosal flap excision group, which retained the structures of the periosteum layer, had the most approximate values to the control group; (2) Different histological changes among the experimental groups were detected. The fibers penetrated into the palatal bone as Sharpey's fibers in the mucoperiosteal denudation group. The pattern of bone deposition was the bundle type. Sharpey's fibers were not found in the mucosal flap and periosteum excision groups and the depositions of palatal bone were the lamellar type as those in the control group; (3) The rates of bone deposition in the experimental groups decreased compared with the control group. The rates in different phases were the most approximate values to those of the control group in the mucosal flap excision group, which has the same structure of periosteum as the control group. Conclusion: There were different effects on the growth and development of the maxilla and dental arch in different types of palatal lateral excisions. Periosteum is important for bone formation and deposition pattern. The prevention of Sharpey's fibers forming and attaching to the palatine can effectively avert the following malformation.

show abstract

Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Cleft Palate Cells Can Regenerate a Palatal Mucosa in vitro

Cleft Palate Cells Can Regenerate a Palatal Mucosa in vitro

Effect of palatoplasty on speech, dental occlusion issues and upper dental arch in children and adolescents with cleft palate: an integrative literature review

Effects of different types of palatal lateral excisions on growth and development of maxilla and dental arch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About