This retrospective study compares orthodontic relapse in patients with cleft lip and palate versus non-cleft controls, highlighting differences in treatment outcomes.
ObjectiveTo compare the 2-year post-treatment stability of vertical and transverse dimensions in orthodontic patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) versus non-cleft controls (NC).DesignRetrospective comparative study.Patients/ParticipantsTwenty-eight patients divided into CLP (n = 14) and NC (n = 14) groups matched for age and sex.InterventionsOrthodontic fixed appliance therapy followed by removable vacuum-formed retainers.Main Outcome MeasuresVertical changes were assessed with lateral cephalograms, and transverse relationships were analyzed using the Modified Huddart-Bodenham (MHB) Index. Intragroup changes (T0-T1) were analyzed with paired t-tests and intergroup differences with unpaired t-tests (P < .05).ResultsAt 2-year post-treatment, the cleft group showed significant reductions in anterior facial height (-1.06 ± 0.59 mm, P < .001), U1-NF (-0.31 ± 0.48 mm, P = .01), L1-MP (-0.54 ± 0.63 mm, P = .004), and U6-NF (-0.66 ± 0.70 mm, P < .001). Transverse relapse was evident at the incisors (-0.36 ± 0.50, P = .006), molars (-0.43 ± 0.51, P = .002), and in total scores (-0.29 ± 0.47, P = .007). The NC group showed minimal changes (P > .05).ConclusionsPatients with CLP demonstrate greater vertical and transverse orthodontic relapse 2-year post-treatment compared to non-cleft patients. These findings underscore the necessity for potential permanent retention protocols tailored to the unique anatomical and physiological challenges of the cleft population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: