Treatment Outcome in Bilateral Cleft lip and Palate Patients Evaluated With the Huddart-Bodenham Scoring System and the Bilateral Cleft lip and Palate Yardstick: A Systematic Review.

Wenying Kuang, Miranda Aarts, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Hong He, Edwin M Ongkosuwito
{"title":"Treatment Outcome in Bilateral Cleft lip and Palate Patients Evaluated With the Huddart-Bodenham Scoring System and the Bilateral Cleft lip and Palate Yardstick: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Wenying Kuang,&nbsp;Miranda Aarts,&nbsp;Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman,&nbsp;Hong He,&nbsp;Edwin M Ongkosuwito","doi":"10.1177/10556656211041883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess treatment outcome (transversal and sagittal dental arch relationships) and its determinants in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) evaluated with the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system and the BCLP Yardstick.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Multiple electronic databases were searched without time limitation. Randomized clinical trials, cohort and case control studies using BCLP Yardstick and/or modified Huddart-Bodenham system to judge treatment outcome of patients with BCLP were included. The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 528 studies identified by the electronic search, only eight retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A total of 12 cleft centers were represented. All treatment protocols differed and background information was underreported. The results for the BCLP yardstick showed that all except the centers in New Zealand had a mean score lower than 3, indicating good treatment results. However, these studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. The modified Huddart-Bodenham scores were negative in all studies. No further meta-analysis was done due to heterogeneity and high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results for the dental arch relationship of studies in complete BCLP and possible determinants were not synthesized due to very low quality of evidence. Clinical research for patients with BCLP should focus on sound methodological designs to enable evidence-based decision making to improve treatment for patients with BCLP and thereby hopefully their quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":520794,"journal":{"name":"The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association","volume":" ","pages":"1377-1390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537448/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211041883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: To assess treatment outcome (transversal and sagittal dental arch relationships) and its determinants in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) evaluated with the modified Huddart-Bodenham scoring system and the BCLP Yardstick.

Materials and methods: Multiple electronic databases were searched without time limitation. Randomized clinical trials, cohort and case control studies using BCLP Yardstick and/or modified Huddart-Bodenham system to judge treatment outcome of patients with BCLP were included. The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used.

Results: Of the 528 studies identified by the electronic search, only eight retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A total of 12 cleft centers were represented. All treatment protocols differed and background information was underreported. The results for the BCLP yardstick showed that all except the centers in New Zealand had a mean score lower than 3, indicating good treatment results. However, these studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. The modified Huddart-Bodenham scores were negative in all studies. No further meta-analysis was done due to heterogeneity and high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was graded as very low.

Conclusion: Results for the dental arch relationship of studies in complete BCLP and possible determinants were not synthesized due to very low quality of evidence. Clinical research for patients with BCLP should focus on sound methodological designs to enable evidence-based decision making to improve treatment for patients with BCLP and thereby hopefully their quality of life.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

用Huddart-Bodenham评分系统和双侧唇腭裂量表评价双侧唇腭裂患者的治疗效果:一项系统综述。
目的:用改良的Huddart-Bodenham评分系统和BCLP量表评估完全性双侧唇腭裂(BCLP)的治疗效果(横弓和矢状牙弓关系)及其决定因素。材料与方法:检索多个电子数据库,不受时间限制。采用BCLP标准和/或改进的Huddart-Bodenham系统来判断BCLP患者的治疗结果,包括随机临床试验、队列和病例对照研究。干预措施的非随机研究的偏倚风险采用了推荐、评估、发展和评价的工具和分级。结果:在通过电子检索确定的528项研究中,只有8项回顾性研究符合纳入标准并被纳入。共有12个裂隙中心被代表。所有的治疗方案不同,背景信息被低估。BCLP衡量标准的结果显示,除新西兰的中心外,其他中心的平均得分均低于3分,表明治疗效果良好。然而,这些研究有中度到高度的偏倚风险。修正后的Huddart-Bodenham评分在所有研究中均为负值。由于异质性和高偏倚风险,未进行进一步的meta分析。证据的质量被评为非常低。结论:由于证据质量很低,对完全BCLP的牙弓关系和可能的决定因素的研究结果不能综合。BCLP患者的临床研究应注重合理的方法学设计,使循证决策能够改善BCLP患者的治疗,从而有望提高他们的生活质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信