3.8 Article

Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 606-611

出版社

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/05-069

关键词

delayed hard palate closure; GOSLON Yardstick; longitudinal analyses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the dental arch relationships for a consecutive series from Goteborg, Sweden, who had delayed hard palate closure. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg, Sweden. Patients: The dental study models of 104 consecutive unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. The study cohort was born between 1979 and 1994. Longitudinal records were available at ages 5 (n = 94), 10 (n = 97), 16 (n = 59), and 19 years (n = 46). Five assessors rated models according to the GOSLON Yardstick on two separate occasions each. Interventions: These patients had been operated upon according to the Goteborg protocol of delayed hard palate closure (at age 8 years). Results: 85% of subjects were rated in groups I and 2 (excellent or very good outcome), 12% were rated in group 3 (satisfactory), and 3% were assigned to group 4 (poor). No patients presented in Group 5 (very poor). Weighted kappa statistics for double determination of Yardstick allocation for five assessors demonstrated values between .65 and .90 for interrater agreement (good/very good) and between .70 and .90 for intrarater agreement (very good). Conclusions: Delayed hard palate closure as practiced in Goteborg since 1979 has produced the best GOSLON Yardstick ratings in a consecutive series of patients ever recorded worldwide, since the Yardstick was first used in 1983. However, it is noteworthy that a new protocol has been introduced in Goteborg since 1994, in which hard palate closure is done at 3 years due to concerns regarding speech.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据