Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes

R. Al-Ghatam; T. E M Jones; A. J. Ireland; N. E. Atack; O. Chawla; S. Deacon; L. Albery; A. R M Cobb; J. Cadogan; S. Leary; A. Waylen; A. K. Wills; B. Richard; H. Bella; A. R. Ness; J. R. Sandy

doi:10.1111/ocr.12109

Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes

R. Al-Ghatam, T. E M Jones, A. J. Ireland, N. E. Atack, O. Chawla, S. Deacon, L. Albery, A. R M Cobb, J. Cadogan, S. Leary, A. Waylen, A. K. Wills, B. Richard, H. Bella, A. R. Ness, J. R. Sandy^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

47 Citations (Scopus)

408 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. Setting and sample population: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model.

Materials and methods: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys.

Results: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships.

Conclusions: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	14-24
Number of pages	11
Journal	Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research
Volume	18
Issue number	Supplement S2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12109
Publication status	Published - 16 Nov 2015

Bibliographical note

Accepted 5 September 2015

Keywords

Cleft lip
Cleft palate
Face
Treatment outcome

Access to Document

10.1111/ocr.12109

Al_Ghatam_et_al_2015_Structural_outcomes_in_the_Cleft_Care_UK_study._Part_2_dento_facial_outcomes
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes], which has been published in final form at [ 10.1111/ocr.12109]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving."
Final published version, 309 KB

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

Al-Ghatam, R., Jones, T. E. M., Ireland, A. J., Atack, N. E., Chawla, O., Deacon, S., Albery, L., Cobb, A. R. M., Cadogan, J., Leary, S., Waylen, A., Wills, A. K., Richard, B., Bella, H., Ness, A. R., & Sandy, J. R. (2015). Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes. Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, 18(Supplement S2), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12109

@article{15abff94aadc4e95bf545b9804682fb2,

title = "Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes",

abstract = "Objectives: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. Setting and sample population: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model.Materials and methods: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys.Results: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships.Conclusions: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.",

keywords = "Cleft lip, Cleft palate, Face, Treatment outcome",

author = "R. Al-Ghatam and Jones, {T. E M} and Ireland, {A. J.} and Atack, {N. E.} and O. Chawla and S. Deacon and L. Albery and Cobb, {A. R M} and J. Cadogan and S. Leary and A. Waylen and Wills, {A. K.} and B. Richard and H. Bella and Ness, {A. R.} and Sandy, {J. R.}",

note = "Accepted 5 September 2015",

year = "2015",

month = nov,

day = "16",

doi = "10.1111/ocr.12109",

language = "English",

volume = "18",

pages = "14--24",

journal = "Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research",

issn = "1601-6335",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "Supplement S2",

}

Al-Ghatam, R, Jones, TEM, Ireland, AJ, Atack, NE, Chawla, O, Deacon, S, Albery, L, Cobb, ARM, Cadogan, J, Leary, S, Waylen, A, Wills, AK, Richard, B, Bella, H, Ness, AR & Sandy, JR 2015, 'Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes', Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, vol. 18, no. Supplement S2, pp. 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12109

TY - JOUR

T1 - Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2

T2 - Dento-facial outcomes

AU - Al-Ghatam, R.

AU - Jones, T. E M

AU - Ireland, A. J.

AU - Atack, N. E.

AU - Chawla, O.

AU - Deacon, S.

AU - Albery, L.

AU - Cobb, A. R M

AU - Cadogan, J.

AU - Leary, S.

AU - Waylen, A.

AU - Wills, A. K.

AU - Richard, B.

AU - Bella, H.

AU - Ness, A. R.

AU - Sandy, J. R.

N1 - Accepted 5 September 2015

PY - 2015/11/16

Y1 - 2015/11/16

N2 - Objectives: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. Setting and sample population: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model.Materials and methods: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys.Results: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships.Conclusions: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.

AB - Objectives: To compare facial appearance and dento-alveolar relationship outcomes from the CSAG (1998) and CCUK (2013) studies. Setting and sample population: Five-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Those in the original CSAG were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. Those in CCUK were treated in a more centralized, high-volume operator model.Materials and methods: We compared facial appearance using frontal view photographs (252 CCUK, 239 CSAG) and dental relationships using study models (198 CCUK, 223 CSAG). Facial appearance was scored by a panel of six assessors using a standardized and validated outcome tool. Dento-alveolar relationships were scored by two assessors using the 5-Year-Olds' Index. Ordinal regression was used to compare results between surveys.Results: Excellent or good facial appearance was seen in 36.2% of CCUK compared with 31.9% in CSAG. In CCUK, 21.6% were rated as having poor or very poor facial appearance compared with 27.6% in CSAG. The percentage rated as having excellent or good dento-alveolar relationships was 53.0% in CCUK compared with 29.6% in CSAG. In CCUK, 19.2% were rated as having poor or very poor dento-alveolar relationships compared to 36.3% in CSAG. The odds ratios for improved outcome in CCUK compared to CSAG were 1.43 (95% CI 1.03, 1.97) for facial appearance and 2.29 (95% CI 1.47, 3.55) for dento-alveolar relationships.Conclusions: Facial and dento-alveolar outcomes were better in CCUK children compared to those in CSAG.

KW - Cleft lip

KW - Cleft palate

KW - Face

KW - Treatment outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946710845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ocr.12109

DO - 10.1111/ocr.12109

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 26567852

AN - SCOPUS:84946710845

SN - 1601-6335

VL - 18

SP - 14

EP - 24

JO - Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research

JF - Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research

IS - Supplement S2

ER -

Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Professor Sam D Leary

Cite this

Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Profiles

Professor Sam D Leary

Cite this