Minna Merta, Roni Harjunpää, Junnu Leikola, Juho Suojanen, Nora Holmberg, Arja Heliövaara
{"title":"Cephalometric Comparison of Le Fort I Osteotomy in Growing and Non-Growing Patients With Clefts: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Minna Merta, Roni Harjunpää, Junnu Leikola, Juho Suojanen, Nora Holmberg, Arja Heliövaara","doi":"10.1177/10556656261424586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo cephalometrically compare craniofacial morphology and maxillary advancement in growing versus non-growing patients with clefts undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingAll patients underwent maxillary osteotomy at a single tertiary hospital.PatientsThe Pre-Growth-Completion group (PreGC) comprised 28 growing patients (18 males, 10 females; 9 BCLP, 18 UCLP, 1 CP) with a mean age at surgery of 13.5 years (SD = 1.22; range, 11.5-16.7). The Post-Growth-Completion group (PostGC) comprised 59 patients (28 males, 31 females; 15 BCLP, 23 UCLP, 21 CP) with a mean age at surgery of 18.3 years (SD = 4.38; range, 14.5-45.3). Patients with syndromes and those undergoing bimaxillary osteotomies were excluded.InterventionsEach patient underwent Le Fort I osteotomy. Osteotomies were fixed with patient-specific implants or miniplates.Main Outcome MeasuresCephalometric analysis was performed comparing preoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs or CT scans and immediate postoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs.ResultsPatients in PreGC group had more severe preoperative maxillary hypoplasia (SNA 74.2° vs 77.0°, <i>P</i> = .007; ANB -5.2° vs -1.9°, <i>P</i> = .0001), but no significant differences were observed postoperatively (SNA 80.7° vs 78.9°, ANB 2.7° vs 3.9°). Maxillary horizontal advancement was greater in the PreGC group (point A 6.4 mm vs 3.2 mm; <i>P</i> = .00002).ConclusionsPatients undergoing early Le Fort I osteotomy had more severe preoperative maxillary hypoplasia, required greater horizontal advancements, yet achieved significant corrections comparable to patients treated later. However, early osteotomy in growing patients may be considered a 2-stage approach as secondary correction is often required after growth is complete.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"3931-3940"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656261424586","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectiveTo cephalometrically compare craniofacial morphology and maxillary advancement in growing versus non-growing patients with clefts undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingAll patients underwent maxillary osteotomy at a single tertiary hospital.PatientsThe Pre-Growth-Completion group (PreGC) comprised 28 growing patients (18 males, 10 females; 9 BCLP, 18 UCLP, 1 CP) with a mean age at surgery of 13.5 years (SD = 1.22; range, 11.5-16.7). The Post-Growth-Completion group (PostGC) comprised 59 patients (28 males, 31 females; 15 BCLP, 23 UCLP, 21 CP) with a mean age at surgery of 18.3 years (SD = 4.38; range, 14.5-45.3). Patients with syndromes and those undergoing bimaxillary osteotomies were excluded.InterventionsEach patient underwent Le Fort I osteotomy. Osteotomies were fixed with patient-specific implants or miniplates.Main Outcome MeasuresCephalometric analysis was performed comparing preoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs or CT scans and immediate postoperative lateral cephalometric radiographs.ResultsPatients in PreGC group had more severe preoperative maxillary hypoplasia (SNA 74.2° vs 77.0°, P = .007; ANB -5.2° vs -1.9°, P = .0001), but no significant differences were observed postoperatively (SNA 80.7° vs 78.9°, ANB 2.7° vs 3.9°). Maxillary horizontal advancement was greater in the PreGC group (point A 6.4 mm vs 3.2 mm; P = .00002).ConclusionsPatients undergoing early Le Fort I osteotomy had more severe preoperative maxillary hypoplasia, required greater horizontal advancements, yet achieved significant corrections comparable to patients treated later. However, early osteotomy in growing patients may be considered a 2-stage approach as secondary correction is often required after growth is complete.
期刊介绍:
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.