3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Canine eruption in patients with complete cleft lip and palate

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 73-80

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1597/07-049.1

关键词

bone graft; canine; cleft; eruption; impacted; lip; palate; position

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe erupting maxillary canine positions in patients with bone-grafted alveolar clefts. Sample: The sample consisted of 101 cleft sites from patients with complete unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate who had early (:! 9 years) or late (>9 years) secondary alveolar bone grafts. Methods: Canine position was assessed using panoramic radiographs taken before and after alveolar bone grafts. Vertical canine positions were assessed using the long axis of the maxillary permanent canine relative to a 90 degrees vertical reference line. Lateral canine positions were defined using the relationship between the canine tip and the midplane of the lateral incisor root. Anomalous lateral incisors were recorded. Statistical analysis included Student's t tests and chi-square tests. Results: Patients with alveolar clefts had a 20-fold increased risk for canine impaction, based on erupting canine positions. Abnormal vertical canine positions decreased following early and late alveolar bone grafts (p < .05), whereas abnormal lateral canine positions increased following late alveolar bone grafts (p < .01). Of the cleft sites with altered canine positions, 61% also had a lateral incisor anomaly. Based on canine position, the non-cleft-side canine had the same risk for impaction as the cleft-side canine. Conclusions: Patients with alveolar clefts have a significantly higher risk for canine impaction compared with patients without clefts. Timing of alveolar bone grafts and lateral incisor anomalies influenced the risk. for canine impaction. An alveolar bone graft should be planned in accordance with maxillofacial development, including the eruption of teeth adjacent to the cleft.

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

3.9
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