a retrospective study of cleft lip and palate patients´ satisfaction after maxillary distraction or traditional advancement of the maxilla

Clicks: 214
ID: 155727
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Objectives: To compare cleft lip and palate patients’ satisfaction with aesthetics and functional parameters after conventional advancement of the maxilla or by the use of distraction osteogenesis.Material and methods: Case series observational study. Group of distraction osteogenesis (DO) consisted of 15 patients treated with distraction osteogenesis while group conventional (CONV) included 10 patients treated with traditional advancement of the maxilla. Patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their subjective evaluation of satisfaction with facial aesthetics and functional parameters on a continuous visual analog-scale (VAS) when the treatment was finished.Results: The total response rate was 76%. Preoperatively the two groups did not differ significantly according to group characteristics. At follow-up both groups were satisfied with aesthetics and functional parameters. The DO group was less satisfied with the duration of the treatment than the CONV group. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups regarding functional parameters or facial aesthetics.Conclusions: Cleft lip and palate patients experienced a high level of satisfaction with functional parameters and aesthetics as a result of surgical maxillary advancement. The patients treated with distraction osteogenesis were less satisfied with the duration of the treatment. Further studies are needed.
Reference Key
andersen2012ejournala Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Kristian Andersen;Sven Erik Nørholt;Annelise Küseler;John Jensen;Thomas Klit Pedersen
Journal ejournal of oral maxillofacial research
Year 2012
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.