A cross-sectional analysis compares smile aesthetics in CUCLP patients versus non-cleft controls, indicating persistent deficits.
ObjectiveThis study aimed to comprehensively compare smile aesthetics between surgically corrected unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) patients and non-cleft controls, evaluating multiple facial domains to identify persistent deficits.DesignA cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted.SettingThe study was performed in a clinical research setting.Patients/ParticipantsThe cohort consisted of 30 CUCLP patients who had undergone surgical repair and 30 age- and sex-matched non-cleft controls, all aged between 16 and 30 years.InterventionsThe intervention for the patient group was prior surgical correction of CUCLP; no new intervention was administered as part of this observational study.Main Outcome Measure(s)Standardized frontal photographs were analyzed using MAKHTER software and the Akhter-Anne Smile Diagram. Key parameters measured across facial, nasal, labial, nasolabial, and dento-gingival domains included nasal width, commissure width, philtrum height, lip length, and incisor display.ResultsThe facial component showed no significant differences. However, CUCLP patients exhibited significant deficits in other domains: reduced philtrum height (0.58 ± 0.21 mm vs. 0.84 ± 0.31 mm; p = 0.004), shorter upper lip length (0.42 ± 0.14 mm vs. 0.62 ± 0.22 mm; p = 0.001), and narrower commissure width (4.23 ± 0.52 mm vs. 6.95 ± 0.90 mm; p < 0.001). Nasal width was reduced (3.25 ± 0.40 mm vs. 4.56 ± 0.54 mm; p < 0.001) with pronounced nasolabial asymmetry. Dento-gingivally, maxillary incisor show was less (1.80 ± 0.54 mm vs. 3.45 ± 0.63 mm; p < 0.01) while mandibular incisor display was greater (2.75 ± 0.48 mm vs. 1.25 ± 0.36 mm; p < 0.05).ConclusionsDespite surgical repair, CUCLP patients have persistent esthetic impairments, particularly in the nasolabial and dento-gingival regions. A structured, multi-domain smile analysis is crucial for guiding multidisciplinary treatment to optimize final aesthetic and psychosocial outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: