The Americleft Study: An Inter-Center Study of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Part 4. Nasolabial Aesthetics

• Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2011-05, Vol.48 (3), p.259-264
• Main Authors: Mercado, Ana, Russell, Kathleen, Hathaway, Ronald, Daskalogiannakis, John, Sadek, Hani, Long, Ross E., Cohen, Marilyn, Semb, Gunvor, Shaw, William
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Birth defects; Child; Cleft Lip - epidemiology; Cleft Lip - surgery; Cleft Palate - epidemiology; Cleft Palate - surgery; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deformities; Dentistry; Esthetics; Facial Asymmetry - congenital; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; Female; Humans; Lip; Male; Medical sciences; Non tumoral diseases; North America - epidemiology; Nose; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Research Design; Retrospective Studies; Studies; Surgical outcomes
• ISSN: 1055-6656; 1545-1569
• DOI: 10.1597/09-186.1

Objective To compare the nasolabial aesthetics for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate between the ages of 5 and 12 years. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting Four cleft centers in North America. Subjects A total of 124 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were treated at the four centers. Methods After ethics approval was obtained, 124 preorthodontic frontal and profile patient images were scanned, cropped to show the nose and upper lip, and coded. Using the coded images, four nasolabial features that reflect aesthetics (i.e., nasal symmetry, nasal form, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile) were rated by five examiners using the rating system reported by Asher-McDade et al. (1991). Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were determined using weighted kappa statistics. Mean ratings, by center, were compared using analysis of variance. Results Intrarater reliability scores were good to very good and interrater reliability scores were moderate to good. Total nasolabial scores were Center B = 2.98, Center C = 3.02, Center D = 2.80, and Center E = 2.87. No statistically significant differences among centers were detected for both total aesthetic scores and for any of the individual aesthetic components. Conclusion There were no significant differences in nasolabial aesthetics among the centers evaluated. Overall good to fair nasolabial aesthetic results were achieved using the different treatment protocols in the four North American centers.