A New Yardstick for Rating Dental Arch Relationship in Patients With Complete Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective: To develop yardsticks for assessment of dental arch relationship in young individuals with repaired complete bilateral cleft lip and palate appropriate to different stages of dental development. Participants: Eleven cleft team orthodontists from five countries worked on the projects for 4 days. A total of 776 sets of standardized plaster models from 411 patients with operated complete bilateral cleft lip and palate were available for the exercise. Statistics: The interexaminer reliability was calculated using weighted kappa statistics. Results: The interrater weighted kappa scores were between .74 and .92, which is in the ""good"" to ""very good"" categories. Conclusions: Three bilateral cleft lip and palate yardsticks for different developmental stages of the dentition were made: one for the deciduous dentition (6-year-olds` yardstick), one for early mixed dentition (9-year-olds` yardstick), and one for early permanent dentition (12-year-olds` yardstick).

A Longitudinal Three-Center Study of Dental Arch Relationship in Patients With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Objective: To compare and evaluate longitudinally the dental arch relationships from 4.5 to 13.5 years of age with the Bauru-BCLP Yardstick in a large sample of patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). Design: Retrospective longitudinal intercenter outcome study. Patients: Dental casts of 204 consecutive patients with complete BCLP were evaluated at 6, 9, and 12 years of age. All models were identified only by random identification numbers. Setting: Three cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Dental arch relationships were categorized with the Bauru-BCLP yardstick. Increments for each interval (from 6 to 9 years, 6 to 12 years, and 9 to 12 years) were analyzed by logistic and linear regression models. Results: There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the centers at age 12 or at age 9. At age 6, center B showed significantly better results (p = .027), but this difference diminished as the yardstick score for this group increased over time (linear regression analysis), the difference with the reference category (center C, boys) for the intervals 6 to 12 and 9 to 12 years being 10.4% (p = .041) and 12.9% (p = .009), respectively. Conclusions: Despite different treatment protocols, dental arch relationships in the three centers were comparable in final scores at age 9 and 12 years. Delaying hard palate closure and employing infant orthopedics did not appear to be advantageous in the long run. Premaxillary osteotomy employed in center B appeared to be associated with less favorable development of the dental arch relationship between 9 and 12 years.