Self-perceived oral health and orofacial aesthetics of cleft patients

Purpose: To evaluate the self-perceived oral health and aesthetics of the dentition and jaw in patients with different types of oral cleft, measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Additionally, to compare the results of the PROMs between cleft lip and or/palate (CL/P) patients and non-affected controls. Methods: 420 CL/P patients treated at the cleft team of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, were included, and 138 non-cleft patients were recruited as control-group. Patient’s perceptions were retrospectively evaluated using the CLEFT-Q Teeth for dental aesthetics at ages 8, 12 and 22, CLEFT-Q Jaw for jaw aesthetics at ages 12 and 22, and the Child Oral Health Impact Profile—Oral Symptoms Subscale (COHIP-OSS) for oral health at ages 8 and 12. One-way ANOVA was used to compare differences in oral health and aesthetic perceptions among age-groups, cleft types, as well as between cases and controls. Results: CL/P patients were significantly less satisfied than controls with their dental aesthetics (p = 0.001). CL/P patients reported significantly lower satisfaction on CLEFT-Q Teeth scores at ages 8 and 12, than at 22 years (p &lt; 0.001). Patients with the most extensive cleft phenotype, Cleft Lip and Palate (CLAP), reported lowest satisfaction on the CLEFT-Q Teeth. No differences in perceptions of oral health nor in aesthetics of the jaw were found in the different cleft types, ages, nor in study versus control group. Conclusion: This study found differences in self-perceived dental aesthetics: CL/P patients are less satisfied than non-affected controls. CLAP patients are least satisfied, but satisfaction increases with age.</p

Self-perceived oral health and orofacial aesthetics of cleft patients

Purpose: To evaluate the self-perceived oral health and aesthetics of the dentition and jaw in patients with different types of oral cleft, measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Additionally, to compare the results of the PROMs between cleft lip and or/palate (CL/P) patients and non-affected controls. Methods: 420 CL/P patients treated at the cleft team of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, were included, and 138 non-cleft patients were recruited as control-group. Patient’s perceptions were retrospectively evaluated using the CLEFT-Q Teeth for dental aesthetics at ages 8, 12 and 22, CLEFT-Q Jaw for jaw aesthetics at ages 12 and 22, and the Child Oral Health Impact Profile—Oral Symptoms Subscale (COHIP-OSS) for oral health at ages 8 and 12. One-way ANOVA was used to compare differences in oral health and aesthetic perceptions among age-groups, cleft types, as well as between cases and controls. Results: CL/P patients were significantly less satisfied than controls with their dental aesthetics (p = 0.001). CL/P patients reported significantly lower satisfaction on CLEFT-Q Teeth scores at ages 8 and 12, than at 22 years (p &lt; 0.001). Patients with the most extensive cleft phenotype, Cleft Lip and Palate (CLAP), reported lowest satisfaction on the CLEFT-Q Teeth. No differences in perceptions of oral health nor in aesthetics of the jaw were found in the different cleft types, ages, nor in study versus control group. Conclusion: This study found differences in self-perceived dental aesthetics: CL/P patients are less satisfied than non-affected controls. CLAP patients are least satisfied, but satisfaction increases with age.</p

Evaluation and recommendations of the oral health, oral function, and orofacial aesthetics-related measures of the ICHOM Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate

This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of outcome measures for the orofacial domain included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate (ICHOM-SCS). In this multicentre study involving two cleft centres, suggestions to optimize the type and timing of outcome measures were made based on data and clinical experience. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (CLEFT-Q Jaw, Teeth, Eating/Drinking; Child Oral Health Impact Profile—Oral Symptoms Scale (COHIP-OSS)) and clinical outcome measures (caries experience and dental occlusion) data were collected retrospectively for age 5, 8, 10, 12, 19, and 22 years. The data were categorized by cleft type and analysed within and between age groups using Spearman correlation, the distribution of responses per item, a two-sample test for equality of proportions, and effect plots. Most correlations between PROMs and clinical outcome measures were weak (r &lt; 0.5), suggesting PROMs and clinical outcome measures complement each other. The COHIP-OSS and CLEFT-Q Eating/Drinking barely detected problems in any patient category and are no longer recommended. A suitable alternative appears complex to find; outcomes of this study and the recent literature doubt an added value. Similar problems were found in the CLEFT-Q Jaw at time-point 12 years. Therefore, time-points 15 and 17 years are currently suggested.</p

Caries in cleft patients:aetiology, prevalence, prevention, and treatment

The caries prevalence in patients with cleft lip and/or palate is higher in both the deciduous and permanent dentition, compared to non-cleft patients. Inadequate oral hygiene is one of the main causes. Additional, individualized advice concerning diet and oral hygiene, such as the additional advice of the Ivoren Kruis (Dutch association of dental hygienists), is of great importance. During curative treatment, attention should be paid to any dental anxiety and possible reduced compliance.</p

Caries in cleft patients:aetiology, prevalence, prevention, and treatment

The caries prevalence in patients with cleft lip and/or palate is higher in both the deciduous and permanent dentition, compared to non-cleft patients. Inadequate oral hygiene is one of the main causes. Additional, individualized advice concerning diet and oral hygiene, such as the additional advice of the Ivoren Kruis (Dutch association of dental hygienists), is of great importance. During curative treatment, attention should be paid to any dental anxiety and possible reduced compliance.</p

Evaluation and recommendations of the oral health, oral function, and orofacial aesthetics-related measures of the ICHOM Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate

This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of outcome measures for the orofacial domain included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for Cleft Lip and Palate (ICHOM-SCS). In this multicentre study involving two cleft centres, suggestions to optimize the type and timing of outcome measures were made based on data and clinical experience. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (CLEFT-Q Jaw, Teeth, Eating/Drinking; Child Oral Health Impact Profile—Oral Symptoms Scale (COHIP-OSS)) and clinical outcome measures (caries experience and dental occlusion) data were collected retrospectively for age 5, 8, 10, 12, 19, and 22 years. The data were categorized by cleft type and analysed within and between age groups using Spearman correlation, the distribution of responses per item, a two-sample test for equality of proportions, and effect plots. Most correlations between PROMs and clinical outcome measures were weak (r &lt; 0.5), suggesting PROMs and clinical outcome measures complement each other. The COHIP-OSS and CLEFT-Q Eating/Drinking barely detected problems in any patient category and are no longer recommended. A suitable alternative appears complex to find; outcomes of this study and the recent literature doubt an added value. Similar problems were found in the CLEFT-Q Jaw at time-point 12 years. Therefore, time-points 15 and 17 years are currently suggested.</p