Scandcleft randomized trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: comparison of dental arch relationships and dental indices at 5, 8, and 10 years.
Journal
European journal of orthodontics
ISSN: 1460-2210
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7909010
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 05 2022
24 05 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
4
9
2021
medline:
26
5
2022
entrez:
3
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Scandcleft intercentre study evaluates the outcomes of four surgical protocols (common method Arm A, and methods B, C, and D) for treatment of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) in a set of three randomized trials of primary surgery (Trials 1, 2, and 3). To evaluate and compare dental arch relationships of 5-, 8-, and 10-year-old children with UCLP after four different protocols of primary surgery and to compare three dental indices. The results are secondary outcomes of the overall trial. Study models taken at the ages of 5 (n = 418), 8 (n = 411), and 10 years (n = 410) were analysed by a blinded panel of orthodontists using the Eurocran index, the 5-year-olds' (5YO) index, and the GOSLON Yardstick. Student's t-test, Pearson's correlation, chi-square test, and kappa statistics were used in statistical analyses. The reliability of the dental indices varied between moderate and very good, and those of the Eurocran palatal index varied between fair and very good. Significant correlations existed between the dental indices at all ages. No differences were found in the mean 5-, 8-, and 10-year index scores or their distributions within surgical trials. Comparisons between trials detected significantly better mean index scores in Trial 2 Arm C (at all ages) and in Trial 1 Arm B (at 5 and 10 years of age) than in Trial 3 Arm D. The mean Eurocran dental index scores of the total material at 5, 8, and 10 years of age were 2.50, 2.60, and 2.26, and those of the 5YO index and GOSLON Yardstick were 2.77, 2.90, and 2.54, respectively. At age 10 years, 75.8% of the patients had had orthodontic treatment. The results of these three trials do not provide evidence that one surgical method is superior to the others. The reliabilities of the dental indices were acceptable, and significant correlations existed between the indices at all ages. The reliability of the Eurocran palatal index was questionable. ISRCTN29932826.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND TRIAL DESIGN
The Scandcleft intercentre study evaluates the outcomes of four surgical protocols (common method Arm A, and methods B, C, and D) for treatment of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) in a set of three randomized trials of primary surgery (Trials 1, 2, and 3).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare dental arch relationships of 5-, 8-, and 10-year-old children with UCLP after four different protocols of primary surgery and to compare three dental indices. The results are secondary outcomes of the overall trial.
METHODS
Study models taken at the ages of 5 (n = 418), 8 (n = 411), and 10 years (n = 410) were analysed by a blinded panel of orthodontists using the Eurocran index, the 5-year-olds' (5YO) index, and the GOSLON Yardstick. Student's t-test, Pearson's correlation, chi-square test, and kappa statistics were used in statistical analyses.
RESULTS
The reliability of the dental indices varied between moderate and very good, and those of the Eurocran palatal index varied between fair and very good. Significant correlations existed between the dental indices at all ages. No differences were found in the mean 5-, 8-, and 10-year index scores or their distributions within surgical trials. Comparisons between trials detected significantly better mean index scores in Trial 2 Arm C (at all ages) and in Trial 1 Arm B (at 5 and 10 years of age) than in Trial 3 Arm D. The mean Eurocran dental index scores of the total material at 5, 8, and 10 years of age were 2.50, 2.60, and 2.26, and those of the 5YO index and GOSLON Yardstick were 2.77, 2.90, and 2.54, respectively. At age 10 years, 75.8% of the patients had had orthodontic treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of these three trials do not provide evidence that one surgical method is superior to the others. The reliabilities of the dental indices were acceptable, and significant correlations existed between the indices at all ages. The reliability of the Eurocran palatal index was questionable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN29932826.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34476476
pii: 6363503
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjab055
pmc: PMC9127717
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN29932826']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
258-267Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society.
Références
Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Aug;15(4):503-10
pubmed: 20473537
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 27;42(1):15-23
pubmed: 31586176
Eur J Orthod. 2003 Jun;25(3):251-7
pubmed: 12831214
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992 Sep;29(5):413-8
pubmed: 1472519
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005 Jan;42(1):78-82
pubmed: 15643920
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):359-65
pubmed: 27365183
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 27;42(1):8-14
pubmed: 31579919
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 May;34(3):242-6
pubmed: 9167076
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012 Mar;49(2):215-20
pubmed: 21740162
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):345-52
pubmed: 26988992
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Jun;20(5):943-50
pubmed: 26462656
Cleft Palate J. 1972 Jul;9:194-209
pubmed: 4505892
Cleft Palate J. 1974 Jul;11(0):317-26
pubmed: 4526495
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1991;25(3):269-76
pubmed: 1780725
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 1;12(6):e0178497
pubmed: 28570588
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021 May;58(5):619-627
pubmed: 32975452
Cleft Palate J. 1987 Oct;24(4):314-22
pubmed: 3479277
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):2-13
pubmed: 28218559
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Aug 3;43(4):381-386
pubmed: 33693582
Am J Orthod. 1971 Jun;59(6):552-67
pubmed: 5280423
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):88-93
pubmed: 28218554
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Dec;35(6):772-82
pubmed: 23504529
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992 Sep;29(5):405-8
pubmed: 1472517
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Dec;34(6):762-7
pubmed: 21976635
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 27;42(1):1-7
pubmed: 31579909
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001 Jan;38(1):38-43
pubmed: 11204680
Eur J Orthod. 1997 Apr;19(2):165-70
pubmed: 9183066
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):52-57
pubmed: 27778528
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):58-63
pubmed: 28218557
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Nov;24(4):528-535
pubmed: 33440074
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 27;42(1):24-29
pubmed: 31586198
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991 Jan;28(1):1-21; discussion 46-8
pubmed: 2004087
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011 May;48(3):244-51
pubmed: 21219228
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017 Feb;51(1):14-20
pubmed: 28218552