Search

Treatment of patients with cleft lip and palate is completed with fixed prostheses, removable, total, implants and aims to restore aesthetics, phonetics and function and should be guided by the basic principles of oral rehabilitation, such as physiology, stability, aesthetics, hygiene and the expectations of the patient. In order to obtain longevity of a prosthetic rehabilitation, the periodontal and dental tissue as well as the biomechanics of the prosthesis are to be respected. The purpose of this article is to describe the types of prosthetics treatment, which are performed at HRAC/USP for the rehabilitation of cleft area in adult patients.

This paper presents the treatment protocol of maxillofacial surgery in the rehabilitation process of cleft lip and palate patients adopted at HRAC-USP. Maxillofacial surgeons are responsible for the accomplishment of two main procedures, alveolar bone graft surgery and orthognathic surgery. The primary objective of alveolar bone graft is to provide bone tissue for the cleft site and then allow orthodontic movements for the establishment of an an adequate occlusion. When performed before the eruption of the maxillary permanent canine, it presents high rates of success. Orthognathic surgery aims at correcting maxillomandibular discrepancies, especially anteroposterior maxillary deficiencies, commonly observed in cleft lip and palate patients, for the achievement of a functional occlusion combined with a balanced face.

This paper presents the treatment protocol of maxillofacial surgery in the rehabilitation process of cleft lip and palate patients adopted at HRAC-USP. Maxillofacial surgeons are responsible for the accomplishment of two main procedures, alveolar bone graft surgery and orthognathic surgery. The primary objective of alveolar bone graft is to provide bone tissue for the cleft site and then allow orthodontic movements for the establishment of an an adequate occlusion. When performed before the eruption of the maxillary permanent canine, it presents high rates of success. Orthognathic surgery aims at correcting maxillomandibular discrepancies, especially anteroposterior maxillary deficiencies, commonly observed in cleft lip and palate patients, for the achievement of a functional occlusion combined with a balanced face.

The aim of this article is to present the pediatric dentistry and orthodontic treatment protocol of rehabilitation of cleft lip and palate patients performed at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies - University of São Paulo (HRAC-USP). Pediatric dentistry provides oral health information and should be able to follow the child with cleft lip and palate since the first months of life until establishment of the mixed dentition, craniofacial growth and dentition development. Orthodontic intervention starts in the mixed dentition, at 8-9 years of age, for preparing the maxillary arch for secondary bone graft procedure (SBGP). At this stage, rapid maxillary expansion is performed and a fixed palatal retainer is delivered before SBGP. When the permanent dentition is completed, comprehensive orthodontic treatment is initiated aiming tooth alignment and space closure. Maxillary permanent canines are commonly moved mesially in order to substitute absent maxillary lateral incisors. Patients with complete cleft lip and palate and poor midface growth will require orthognatic surgery for reaching adequate anteroposterior interarch relationship and good facial esthetics.

Cleft lip and palate is the most common among craniofacial malformations and causes several esthetic and functional implications that require rehabilitation. This paper aims to generally describe the several aspects related to this complex pathology and the treatment protocol used by the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC-USP) along 40 years of experience in the treatment of individuals with cleft lip and palate.

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the facial profile esthetics of rehabilitated children with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), comparing the judgment of professionals related and not related to cleft rehabilitation and laypersons. Methods: Thirty children in the mixed dentition (24 male; 6 female) with a mean age of 7.8 years were evaluated using facial profile photographs by 25 examiners: 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons with experience in cleft care, 5 orthodontists and 5 plastic surgeons without experience in oral cleft rehabilitation and 5 graduated laymen. Their facial profiles were classified into esthetically unpleasant (grade 1 to 3), esthetically acceptable (grade 4 to 6), and esthetically pleasant (grade 7 to 9). Intraexaminer and interexaminer errors were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficient and Kendall’s test, respectively. Inter-rater differences were analyzed using Friedman test and Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons. Results: Orthodontists dealing with oral clefts rehabilitation considered the majority of the sample as esthetically pleasant. Plastic surgeons of the cleft team and laypersons classified most of the sample as esthetically acceptable. Most of the orthodontists and plastic surgeons not related to cleft care evaluated the facial profile as esthetically unpleasant. The structures associated to unpleasant profiles were the nose, the midface and the upper lip. Conclusions: The facial profile of children with BCLP was classified as esthetically acceptable by laypersons. Professionals related to cleft rehabilitation were more lenient and those not related to cleft care were stricter to facial esthetics than laypersons.