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 journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)
354 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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)14-24
Number of pages11
JournalOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research
Volume18
Issue numberSupplement S2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Nov 2015

Bibliographical note

Accepted 5 September 2015

Keywords

  • Cleft lip
  • Cleft palate
  • Face
  • Treatment outcome

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: Dento-facial outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this