Karma dentisyon dönemindeki tek taraflı dudak damak yarığı bulunan bireylerin maksiller ve mandibular dental ark parametrelerinin incelenmesi: Retrospektif kesitsel çalışma

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 231 - 241

Taner Öztürk Hatice Başaranlar

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tek taraflı dudak damak yarığı (DDY) bulunan karma dentisyon dönemindeki hastaların maksiler ve mandibular dental ark parametrelerini incelemek ve parametreler arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymaktır. Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya Erciyes Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı’na ortodontik tedavi talebi ile başvurmuş olan DDY bulunan ve bulunmayan toplam 36 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Çalışma modellerinin ağız içi tarama cihazı ile taranması sonucu elde edilen 3 boyutlu maksiller ve mandibular dental modeller üzerinde özel bir yazılım kullanılarak doğrusal ve açısal analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler, TURCOSA bulut tabanlı online istatistiksel analiz yazılımı kullanılarak Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U ve Spearman Korelasyon testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. İstatistiksel anlamlılık p<0.05 değeri temel alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Üst çene dental ark parametreleri için üst çene kaninler arası uzaklığı, anterior ark uzunluğu, toplam ark uzunluğu parametrelerinin DDY grubunda anlamlı derecede daha düşük değerlere sahip olduğu; üst çene daimî birinci molarlar arası uzaklığı, üst çene daimî birinci molarlar arası gingival seviyedeki uzaklığı ve üst daimî birinci molar angulasyonu parametrelerinin daha yüksek değerlere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Alt çene dental ark parametreleri için sadece alt çene kaninler arası uzaklığı parametresinin DDY grubunda anlamlı derecede daha düşük değerlere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Maksiller dental ark DDY’li bireylerde sağlıklı bireylerden sagittal ve transvers yönde daha dardır. Buna karşın mandibular dental ark ise sadece kanin-kanin arası bölgede daha dardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çene bozuklukları, diş modeli, yarık damak

Etik Beyan

Retrospektif kesitsel bir şekilde olarak planlanan bu çalışma başlamasından önce Erciyes Üniversitesi Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından 14/09/2022 tarih ve 2022/599 numaralı kararı ile onaylanmıştır.

Destekleyen Kurum

Herhangi bir destek alınmamıştır.

Investigation of maxillary and mandibular dental arch parameters in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate in the mixed dentition period: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Öz

Aim: The aim of study is to examine the maxillary and mandibular dental arch parameters of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP) in the mixed dentition period and to reveal the relationship between these parameters. Method: A total of 36 patients, both with and without CLP who applied for orthodontic treatment to the Orthodontics Department of Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry. Linear and angular analyses were carried out using special software on the three-dimensional maxillary and mandibular dental models obtained by scanning the study models with an intraoral scanning device. The data obtained were analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U and Spearman Correlation tests using TURCOSA cloud-based online statistical analysis software. Statistical significance was evaluated based on p<0.05. Results: For maxillary dental arch parameters, maxillary inter-canine distance, anterior arch length, and total arch length parameters were significantly lower in the CLP group, while the distance between the maxillary permanent first molars, the distance between the maxillary permanent first molars at the gingival level and the parameters of the maxillary permanent first molar angulation had higher values. For the mandibular dental arch parameters, it was determined that only the mandibular inter-canine distance parameter had significantly lower values in the CLP group. Conclusion: The maxillary dental arch is narrower in the sagittal and transverse directions compared to healthy individuals. However, the mandibular dental arch is narrower only in the intercanine region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cleft palate, dental model, jaw abnormalities

Kaynakça

• Nagase Y, Natsume N, Kato T, Hayakawa T. Epidemiological analysis of cleft lip and/or palate by cleft pattern. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;9(4):389-395.
• Tanaka SA, Mahabir RC, Jupiter DC, Menezes JM. Updating the epidemiology of cleft lip with or without cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):511e-518e.
• Yılmaz HN, Özbilen EÖ, Üstün T. The prevalence of cleft lip and palate patients: a single-center experience for 17 years. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(3):139-144.
• Shapira Y, Lubit E, Kuftinec MM, Borell G. The distribution of clefts of the primary and secondary palates by sex, type, and location. Angle Orthod. 1999;69(6):523-528.
• Yağcı A, Uysal T. Tek Tarafli Dudak-Damak Yariğina Sahip Bebeklerde Nazoalveoler Şekillendirme Yönteminin Yarik Segmentler Ve Alveol Genişlikleri Üzerine Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2007;16(1):1-11.
• Aras I, Olmez S, Dogan S. Comparative evaluation of nasopharyngeal airways of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using three-dimensional and two-dimensional methods. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):75-81.
• Celikoglu M, Halicioglu K, Buyuk SK, Sekerci AE, Ucar FI. Condylar and ramal vertical asymmetry in adolescent patients with cleft lip and palate evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(5):691-697.
• Hasanzadeh N, Majidi MR, Kianifar H, Eslami N. Facial soft-tissue morphology of adolescent patients with nonsyndromic bilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(1):314-317.
• Schnitt DE, Agir H, David DJ. From birth to maturity: a group of patients who have completed their protocol management. Part I. Unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(3):805-817.
• Garrahy A, Millett DT, Ayoub AF. Early assessment of dental arch development in repaired unilateral cleft lip and unilateral cleft lip and palate versus controls. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):385-391.
• Lewis BR, Stern MR, Willmot DR. Maxillary anterior tooth size and arch dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(6):639-646.
• Okazaki K, Kato M, Onizuka T. Palate morphology in children with cleft palate with palatalized articulation. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;26(2):156-163.
• Kilpeläinen PV, Laine-Alava MT, Lammi S. Palatal morphology and type of clefting. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(6):477-482.
• Šmahel Z, Trefný P, Formánek P, Müllerová Ž, Peterka M. Three-dimensional morphology of the palate in subjects with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate at the stage of permanent dentition. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(4):416-423.
• Šmahel Z, Velemínská J, Trefný P, Müllerová Ž. Three-dimensional morphology of the palate in patients with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate at the stage of permanent dentition. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(4):399-408.
• Heidbuchel KL, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Maxillary and mandibular dental-arch dimensions and occlusion in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients from 3 to 17 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(1):21-26.
• McCance AM, Roberts-Harry D, Sherriff M, Mars M, Houston WJ. A study model analysis of adult unoperated Sri Lankans with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1990; 27(2):146-54.
• Honda Y, Suzuki A, Ohishi M, Tashiro H. Longitudinal study on the changes of maxillary arch dimensions in Japanese children with cleft lip and/or palate: infancy to 4 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32(2):149-155.
• Öztürk T, Yağcı A, Ramoğlu Sİ. Evaluation of First Molar Buccolingual Angulations and Dental Arch Parameters in Adolescents with Bilateral Posterior Crossbite. Turk J Orthod. 2023;36(3):165-172.
• Koželj V, Vegnuti M, Drevenšek M, et al. Palate dimensions in six-year-old children with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a six-center study on dental casts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):672-682.
• Gülşen A, Aslan BI, Uzuner FD, Tosun G, Üçüncü N. Discrepancy in the lower arch perimeter in patients with a unilateral cleft lip and palate: orthodontic model analysis. Acta Odontologica Turcica 2019;36(1):16-20.
• Ye B, Ruan C, Hu J, et al. A comparative study on dental-arch morphology in adult unoperated and operated cleft palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(3):811-815.
• Bishara SE, de Arrendondo RSM, Vales HP, Jakobsen JR. Dentofacial relationships in persons with unoperated clefts: comparisons between three cleft types. Am J Orthod. 1985;87(6):481-507.
• DiBiase A, DiBiase D, Hay N, Sommerlad B. The relationship between arch dimensions and the 5-year index in the primary dentition of patients with complete UCLP. Cleft Palate J. 2002;39(6):635-640.
• Nyström M, Ranta R, Kataja M. Sizes of dental arches and general body growth up to 6 years of age in children with isolated cleft palate. Scand J Dent Res. 1992;100(2):123-129.
• Hesby RM, Marshall SD, Dawson DV, et al. Transverse skeletal and dentoalveolar changes during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(6), 721-731.
• Generali C, Primozic J, Richmond S, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary arch and palate in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects using digital dental casts. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39(6):641-645.
• Athanasiou E, Mazaheri M, Zarrinnia K. Dental Arch Dimensions in Patients with Unilateral cleft Lip. Cleft Palate J. 1988;25(2):139-145.
• Rusková H, Bejdová S, Peterka M, Krajíček V, Velemínská J. 3-D shape analysis of palatal surface in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(5):e140-147
• Vyas T, Gupta P, Kumar S, Gupta R, Gupta T, Singh HP. Cleft of lip and palate: A review. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(6):2621-2625.