Skip to main content
Download PDF

Impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth following Sommerlad–Furlow modified technique in patients with isolated cleft palate: a preliminary comparative study

BMC Surgery volume 23, Article number: 358 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth following Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique in patients with isolated cleft palate.

Study design

A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Methods

A total of 90 participants, 60 patients with non-syndromic isolated soft and hard cleft palate underwent primary palatoplasty (30 patients received the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique without relaxing incision (S.F−RI group), and 30 received Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique with relaxing (S.F+RI group) with no significant difference found between them regarding the cleft type, cleft width, and age at repair. While the other 30 were healthy noncleft participants with skeletal class I pattern as a Control group. The control group (C group) was matched with the patient groups in number, age, and sex. All participants had lateral cephalometric radiographs at least 5 years old age. The lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken with the same equipment by the same experienced radiologist while the participants were in centric occlusion and a standardized upright position, with the transporionic axis and Frankfort horizontal plane parallel to the surface of the floor. A well-trained assessor (S. Elayah) used DOLPHIN Imaging Software to trace twice to eliminate measurement errors. All the study variables were measured using stable landmarks, including 12 linear and 10 angular variants.

Results

The mean age at collection of cephalograms was 6.03 ± 0.80 in the S.F+RI group, 5.96 ± 0.76 in the S.F−RI group, and 5.91 ± 0.87 in the C group.

Regarding cranial base, the results showed no statistically significant differences between the three groups in S–N and S–N-Ba. While the S.F+R.I group had a significantly shortest S-Ba than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P = 0.01 & P < 0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between S.F−R.I & C groups (P = 0.71).

Regarding the skeletal maxilla, there was no significant difference between the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I groups in all linear measurements (N-ANS and S-PM) except Co-A, the S.F+R.I group had significantly shorter Co-A than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01). While the angular measurement, S.F+R.I group had significantly less SNA angle than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01).

Regarding mandibular bone, there were no statistically significant differences in all linear and angular mandibular measurements between the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I.groups.

Regarding intermaxillary relation, the S.F+R.I group had significant differences in Co-Gn—Co-A and ANB compared to the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01). While there was no statistically significant difference in PP-MP between the three groups.

Conclusion

As a preliminary report, the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique without relaxing incisions was found to have a good maxillary positioning in the face and a satisfactory intermaxillary relationship compared to the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique with relaxing incisions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Palatoplasty has advanced beyond just closing the gap to properly functioning palate reconstruction with minimal influence on maxillofacial growth in recent years [1]. The ideal surgical outcomes of a palate repair should include disconnection of the oral and nasal cavities and competent velopharyngeal closing for speech recovery while maintaining the normal potential growth in the relevant region [2]. The cause of restricted maxillary growth in individuals with a cleft palate following their initial palate repair surgery remains a topic of ongoing debate, as no agreement has been reached thus far. Moreover, there is a scarcity of compelling evidence establishing a link between growth restriction and the numerous possible factors that may contribute to this condition [3,4,5].

There is limited evidence indicating that the utilization of surgical relaxing incisions during the during primary palatoplasty can have a notably negative impact on the growth of the maxilla [4, 6]. Maxillofacial growth was reported to be inhibited following V–Y pushback and von Langenbeck approaches [7, 8], and denuded areas of bone subsequent relaxing incision left for secondary intention healing is mainly considered responsible for the disturbance of ensuing growth [9,10,11,12,13]. Numerous experimental studies have provided compelling evidence indicating that maxillary growth is adversely affected when the palatal bone is surgically removed using a relaxing incision. Techniques that involve minimal areas of denuded palatal bone are less likely to have negative effects on the maxillary growth when compared to other techniques with relaxing incisions [14,15,16].

The formation of scar tissue within the denuded palatal bone, subsequent to its development, is believed to be a contributing factor to maxillary dysgenesis [17]. Therefore, in a functional cleft palate repair, there has been a trend towards focusing more on palatoplasty techniques that avoid relaxing incisions on the hard palate [18, 19].

Conversely, some previous studies have concluded that there was no observed correlation between the utilization of relaxing incisions and the maxillary growth impairment [20, 21]. Thus, the impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth during palatoplasty remains a topic of debate and further research is needed to fully understand its effects [20, 22].

Sommerlad–Furlow modified technique (S-F technique) is a surgical technique developed by the author (S.B.), combines the best aspects of the Sommerlad approach (involving careful dissection of the muscles) and the Furlow approach (employing a Z-plasty technique) [23, 24]. Thus, S-F technique presents a commendable model for exploring the correlation between relaxing incisions and the maxillofacial growth.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth following S-F technique in patients with isolated cleft palate.

Materials and methods

Subjects

A retrospective study was conducted on 90 participants, 60 patients with non-syndromic isolated soft and hard cleft palate (ISHCP) who underwent to Sommerlad–Furlow modified (S.F) technique, 30 patients received S.F without relaxing incision (S.F−R. I group) 30 patients received S.F with relaxing incision (S.F+R.I group) during the period from 2015 to 2018. While the other 30 were healthy noncleft participants with skeletal class I pattern (C group). Both palatoplasty techniques were performed by two highly experienced cleft surgeons who were trained by the same surgeon, Shi Bing. These surgeons worked as a team at the West China Stomatology Hospital, Sichuan University. Due to differences in etiology and morphology of cleft lip and palate (CLP) and isolated cleft palate (ICP) vary significantly, it is important to avoid combining patients with ICP and CLP in research studies. Therefore, when conducting scientific studies involving individuals affected by clefts, it is crucial to analyze these two groups separately [25, 26]. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the racial aspect can exert a noteworthy influence on the process of cleft palate repair [27]. As a result, numerous studies can be found comparing patients with clefts, without non-cleft control groups sharing the same ethnic background [26, 28]. To be more specific and more accurate, our study was conducted patients with the same cleft palate type; Veau II (involves the soft and hard palate but not alveolar process) [24, 29], as well as participants in all groups were from the same ethnicity. This study design is retrospective, which means that we collected and analyzed data from past records. Thus, authors did not decide which patient would receive palatoplasty with relaxing incisions and which would receive palatoplasty without relaxing incisions. Both patient groups were selected based on specific inclusion criteria: Han Chinese patients with nonsyndromic ISHCP who underwent S.F technique ( with/ without relaxing incisions), patients who had lateral cephalometric radiographs at least 5 years after palatoplasty, patients who had not undergone any other surgery besides palatoplasty as Cheiloplasty, Rhinoplasty or Orthodontic treatment, no history of other types of congenital malformation, there were no significant differences between S.F+R.I group and S.F−R.I group in gender, cleft width, age at the palatoplasty and age at cephalograms collection (Table 1). The cleft width was measured clinically during primary repair while the patients were under general anesthesia using a simple ruler and a caliper, which is a common method in the relevant literature [30]. It was measured at the junction of the hard and soft palate as the distance between the cleft margins [31]. The control group was matched with the patient groups in gender and age at cephalograms collection (Table 1). The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Subject Review Board and Ethical Scientific Board of Sichuan University study (No. WCHS-CRSE-2023–113-R2-P). Informed consent was obtained from all their parents.

Table 1 Demographic features of participants of groups
Full size table

Sample size calculation

The G*power 3.0.10 software was used to calculate the sample size. An effect size of 0.39 was obtained from a previous study [32] for the outcome of S–N between three groups after palatoplasty. The power of the study was set at 0.85, and the alpha error (p-value) was set at 0.05. Accordingly, the required sample size was 25 subjects for each group.

Surgical technique

Every patient in this study underwent cleft palate repair using S-F technique with or without relaxing incisions. The main points of the S-F technique can be summarized as follows [24, 33]: Initially, the procedure involves making an incision at the junction border of oral and nasal layers, followed by lifting the oral muco-periosteal flaps on the hard palate and freeing the greater palatine neurovascular pedicles. Subsequently, an incision is created in the nasopharynx on the medial pterygoid plate using an electrotome, and the nasal mucoperiosteum is cautiously separated from the plate. A meticulous dissection of the nasal musculomucosal layer is then carried out on the left side (mainly the levator veli palatini), and Z-plasty flaps are designed on the nasal layer. The dissected muscular flap from the palate is subsequently stitched to the myomucosal flap on the right side, and finally, the oral layer is closed with or without relaxing incisions [24] (Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The surgical procedures of palatoplasty using the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique without relaxing incisions. A an incision was made along the edge of the cleft to separate the oral mucosa layer and nasal mucosa layer. B A considerable amount of hard palate mucoperiosteal flap elevation and release of greater palatine neurovascular pedicles, nasopharyngeal incision is made on the medial pterygoid plate using an electrotome. C The nasal mucoperiosteum was peeled off anteriorly from the palatine bone and medially from the medial pterygoid plate toward the cranial base and suturing the nasal layer of the hard palate. The nasal musculomucosal layer was subjected to radical muscle dissection. then Z-plasty flaps on the nasal layer of the soft palate were designed. D Complete suturing of the nasal layer of soft palate then suturing the dissected palatal muscle. E The oral layer is sutured without relaxing incisions

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

The surgical procedures of palatoplasty using the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique with relaxing incisions. A an incision was made along the edge of the cleft to separate the oral mucosa layer and nasal mucosa layer and use of relaxing incisions on both cleft side. B A considerable amount of hard palate mucoperiosteal flap elevation and release of greater palatine neurovascular pedicles, nasopharyngeal incision is made on the medial pterygoid plate using an electrotome. C The nasal mucoperiosteum was peeled off anteriorly from the palatine bone and medially from the medial pterygoid plate toward the cranial base and suturing the nasal layer of the hard palate. The nasal musculomucosal layer was subjected to radical muscle dissection. then Z-plasty flaps on the nasal layer of the soft palate were designed. D Complete suturing of the nasal layer of soft palate then suturing the dissected palatal muscle. E The oral layer is sutured and fixing relaxing incisions with absorbable hemostatic sponge

Full size image

Cephalometric assessment

All of the lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken with the same equipment by the same experienced radiologist while the participants were in centric occlusion and a standardized upright position, with the transporionic axis and Frankfort horizontal plane parallel to the surface of the floor [32, 34]. A well-trained assessor (S. Elayah) used DOLPHIN Imaging Software (Dolphin Imaging Version 11.95.07.24 Premium, Chatsworth) [35] to trace twice within a 2-week interval to eliminate measurement errors [36, 37]. All the study variables were measured using stable landmarks, including 12 linear (mm) and 10 angular (º) variants. On each lateral cephalogram, the following landmarks were identified:

  • Cranial Base; Anterior Cranial Base length, S–N (mm); Posterior Cranial Base length, S-Ba (mm) and Cranial Base Angle, S–N-Ba (º) (Fig. S1).

  • Maxilla; Maxillary Length, Co-A (mm); Anterior Upper Facial Height, N-ANS (mm); Posterior Upper Facial Height, S- PM (mm); Maxillary Sagittal Position, SNA (º) and

  • Maxillary anteroposterior inclination, SN-PP(º) (Fig. S2).

  • Mandible: Mandibular length, Co-Gn (mm); Corpus (Body) Length, Go-Gn (mm); Ramus Height, Ar-Go (mm); Mandibular sagittal Position, SNB (º); Total Anterior Facial Height, N-Me (mm); Lower Anterior Facial height, ANS-Me(mm); Total Posterior Facial Height, S-Go (mm) and Mandible anteroposterior inclination, MP-SN(º) (Fig. S3).

  • Mandibular Anteroposterior Inclination; Maxillomandibular differences, Co-Gn—Co-A(mm); Sagittal Intermaxillary Relationship, ANB (º); and Palatal-Mandibular Angle, PP-MP (º) (Fig. S4).

  • Occlusion; Occlusal Plane to SN Plane, OP-SN (º); Occlusal Plane to FH Plane, OP-FH (º) and Occlusal Plane to Mandibular Plane, OP-MP (º) (Fig. S5).

Statistical analysis

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27, (Chicago, USA) used to perform computations for both descriptive and analytical statistics. The normality distribution of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Table S1). To evaluate variances in craniofacial morphology among the three groups, we employed the Kruskal–Wallis H, Mann–Whitney tests and independent t-test. Furthermore, we assessed the intra-examiner reliability of measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient test (ICC). As well as the cephalometric measurement errors were measured using the Dahlberg formula [38]. Additionally, we considered a significance level of P < 0.05.

Results

In this study, a total of 90 participants were involved, consisting of 60 patients with non-syndromic isolated cleft palate who underwent surgical repair using the S.F+R.I technique (30) and S.F−R.I technique (30) with no significant difference found between them regarding cleft type, cleft width, and age at repair. While the other 30 were normal participants with skeletal class I pattern, with no significant difference found among groups regarding gender and age at cephalogram collection (Table 1). The average ages at cephalogram collection were 6.03 ± 0.80 in the S.F−R.I group, 5.96 ± 0.76 in the S.F+R.I group, and 5.91 ± 0.87 in the control group (ranging from 5 to 7 in all groups). Furthermore, a comparison of maxillofacial morphology among the three groups was conducted and the results are presented in (Table 2). The ICC values for all metrics exceeded 0.95, indicating a satisfactory level of agreement. As well as the mean linear and the mean angular measurement errors were near the ideal value of zero (Table 3).

Table 2 Results of comparison of maxillofacial morphology between three groups using the Independent Samples (t-test) test (*) and the Mann–Whitney test (#)
Full size table
Table 3 The cephalometric measurement errors using the Dahlberg formula
Full size table

Regarding cranial base, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the three groups (S.F+R.I, S.F−R.I & C groups) in (S–N 54.5 ± 4.5, 55.4 ± 4.3 & 56.7 ± 4.3 and S–N-Ba; 130.2 ± 5.3, 128.8 ± 6.7 & 129.4 ± 5.3) respectively. While the S.F+R.I group had a significantly shortest S-Ba than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P = 0.01 & P < 0.01), but there was no statistically significant difference between S.F−R.I & C groups (P = 0.72).

Regarding skeletal maxilla, there was no significant difference between the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I groups in all linear measurements (N-ANS and S- PM) except Co-A, the S.F+R.I group had significantly shorter Co-A than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01). While the angular measurement, S.F+R.I group had significantly less SNA angle than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01).

Regarding mandibular bone, there were no statistically significant differences in all linear and angular mandibular measurements between the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.groups. While S.F+R.I group had slightly shorter Co-Gn and Ar-Go than the C group.

Regarding intermaxillary relation, the S.F+R.I group had significant differences in Co-Gn—Co-A and ANB as compared with the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01). While there was no statistically significant difference in PP-MP between the three groups.

Regarding occlusion, there were no significant differences in all angular occlusal measurements between the three groups. 

Discussion

The impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth during palatoplasty is still not fully understood and confusing evidence has been published [39]. However, our previous study which compared between S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I techniques in terms of Oronasal fistula, Velopharyngeal insufficiency, and Inadequate quality of life; concluded that there was a non-significant difference between S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I groups [24].

Thus, this study was aimed to estimate the impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth following S.F technique in patients with isolated cleft palate.

Our findings indicate that there were no statistically significant differences observed among the three groups (S.F+R.I, S.F−R.I & C groups) in the anterior cranial base length and angle values. While the S.F+R.I group had a significantly shortest posterior cranial base than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P = 0.01 & P < 0.01). Liao et al. [40] reported that the stage of palate repair had a significant effect on the means of the length of the posterior cranial base (S-Ba)(p = 0.05). A clinical study [41] evaluated the application of buccal fat pads in pack palate relaxing incisions, concluded the control group (with iodoform gauze) showed significantly shortened cranial basal lengths (N-Ba) (P < 0.05). As well as, a systematic review concluded that the posterior cranial base is not totally stable, as its dimensions change throughout craniofacial growth and a minor dimensional change is observed even in late adulthood [42]. Also, some studies has postulated that the decreased cranial base length observed in individuals with BCLP might be linked to growth stunting during their early years, followed by a compensatory growth spurt in the later stages of development [35]. Koberg and Koblin [6] found that Veau's method of pushback and Langenbeck's technique involving relaxing incisions had the most adverse impact on the maxillofacial growth of patients with cleft palate. On the other hand, some studies reported that it appears improbable that mending the palate repair have any impact on the cranial base growth, because of its distance from the surgical site. One potential reason for this disparity could be variations in body height, which is related to the length of the cranial base [43, 44]. Thus, palatoplasty with relaxing incisions might not have an effect on posterior cranial base growth.

Most of studies did not specifically focus on the cranial base, but the maxilla is a key component of the cranial base. While comparing the measures of maxilla, we did not find significant differences between the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I groups in all linear measurements except maxillary length which was significantly shorter Co-A than the S.F−R.I group(P =  < 0.01). While, the relative anteroposterior relation of the maxilla to the cranial base, S.F+R.I group had significantly less SNA angle than the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01).

A randomized clinical trial study was conducted to investigate the impact of relaxing incisions on maxillary growth in individuals undergoing the two-flap and one-flap techniques. It concluded that there is no association between the implementation of relaxing incisions and any subsequent disruptions in maxillary growth [20]. This study failed to offer conclusive evidence on the association between the utilization of relaxing incisions and potential maxillary growth impairment due to the absence of a control group. Moreover, both trial groups employed relaxing incisions. In contrast, Tanino et al. [45] who compared between two different protocols for palatoplasty. In one group, a vomer flap was used, while in the other group, the repair was done by push-back technique with relaxing incisions. They concluded that the use of a vomer flap resulted in favorable maxillary growth. This was attributed to the fact that no relaxing incisions were made, avoiding secondary intention healing. On the other hand, the utilization of the minimal incision technique has demonstrated superior outcomes in the advancement of the maxilla [46]. This context in agreement with our results.

Some studies suggest that the utilization of surgical relaxing incisions during primary palatoplasty can have a notably adverse impact on maxillary growth [9,10,11,12,13]. On the contrary, several studies have found no correlation between the utilization of these incisions and growth impairment [20, 21, 47].

In term of mandible, there was no significant difference in all linear and angular measurements of mandible in the S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I groups. Our results are consistent with previous studies, which found that the technique of hard palate repair had no significant impact on either the mandibular plane inclination or the mandibular protrusion [48,49,50]. Shibasaki and Ross [51] reported the mandible is of normal length but retropositioned due to the functional response of the mandible to the altered maxilla. Thus, our results of mandibular measurements may explain that maxillary growth was satisfactory growth which obtained with both techniques.

In term of maxillo-mandibular relationship, our results showed that the S.F+R.I group had significant differences in Co-Gn—Co-A and ANB as compared with the S.F−R.I & C groups (P =  < 0.01). While there was no significant differences between the S.F−R.I & C groups in the intermaxillary relationship. Da Silva et al. [52] the intermaxillary relationship was regarded as satisfactory, and the facial pattern did not affect the primary palatoplasty. Some studies [48,49,50] reported that the palatoplasty did not significantly affect jaw relation (ANB). The technique may result in more palatal scar tissue, which might have a greater impact on the alveolar process and teeth than on maxillary growth [50]. On the other hand, incisor relations and articulation were enhanced by a decrease in periosteal undermining and a reduction of the palatal region, which was left exposed following palatal repair [53]. Similarly, when compared to the Veau-Wardill-Kilner technique, which was reported to create relatively large regions of denuded palatal bone, the minimal incision technique contributed to improved maxilla growth and dental occlusion [46].

In term of Occlusion, an experiment study showed that mucoperiosteal denudation of the palate had a greater effect on the inclination of the teeth [54]. Another study has been compared the dental occlusion in two techniques repair of isolated clefts of the hard and soft palate, reported that the minimal incision technique has been shown to result in better a better dental occlusion and palatal mucosa with significantly less scar tissue [46]. These studies in consistent with our results, which showed a satisfactory dental occlusion in S.F−R.I group, but they interpret our results of S.F+R.I group, there was no significant difference in all angular measurements in three groups. Odom et al. [21] found no relationship between the kind of palatal incisions created during the closure of an isolated cleft palate and the subsequent formation of a class III incisal relation.

Overall, the lateral relaxing incisions remain a probable factor among the other possible causes for maxillary growth disruption following cleft palate surgery, while there is no consensus in the literature about the causal independent factor for this condition [20, 47]. The current favorable outcomes observed in both primary palatoplasty techniques may be clarified through the conclusions of two systematic review studies; It is generally accepted that cleft lip repair may have a negative impact on maxillofacial growth; thus, lip closure is the most significant factor in inhibiting maxillary growth in those with UCLP [55, 56]. However, the tension generated by upper lip closure results in retro-inclined upper incisors, a retruded maxilla, and an obtuse nasolabial angle [57]. Typically, this results in an anterior crossbite [58].

The favorable outcomes observed in the S-F technique may be attributed to the three concepts that the S-F technique designed to close the cleft palate under palatal muscle reconstruction using Sommerlad muscle dissection, decreasing the pharyngeal cavity by nasal Z-plasty and a novel incision on the medial pterygoid plate's surface which was designed to make the S-F technique applicable in wider clefts without relaxing incision on the hard palate [23].

The outcomes associated with this study may have been impacted by its limitations. The groups were assessed before puberty. As well as, it did not assess the postoperative complications, including oronasal fistula, and velopharyngeal insufficiency. However, our previous study which compared between S.F+R.I and S.F−R.I technique in terms of Oronasal fistula, Velopharyngeal insufficiency, and Inadequate quality of life, concluded that there was a non-significant difference between the relaxing incision (S.F+R.I) and non-relaxing incision (S.F−R.I) groups [24]. Another limitation was that the patients included were not all from the same surgeon. However, in this study, both surgeons had more than 12 years of experience and worked in almost the same team. Further evaluation of prospective study with a large size would be warranted.

Conclusion

As a preliminary report, the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique without relaxing incisions was found to have good maxillary positioning in the face and satisfactory intermaxillary relationship compared to the Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique with relaxing incisions. Thus, there seems that the use of relaxing incisions may be related to maxillary growth impairment in patients aged 5–7 years. However, longer-term studies are needed to confirm these results.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

S.F+R.I :

Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique with relaxing incisions

S.F− R.I :

Sommerlad-Furlow modified technique without relaxing incisions

S:

Sella

N:

Nasion

Ba:

Basion

Co:

Condylion

A:

A point

ANS:

Anterior nasal spine

PM:

Pterygomaxillare

PP:

Palatal plane

Gn:

Gnathion

Go:

Gonion

B:

B point

Me:

Menton

Ar:

Articular

MP:

Mandibular Plane

OP:

Occlusal Plane

FH:

Frankfort horizontal plane

SD:

Standard deviation

(mm):

Distances between two landmarks were measured in millimeters

(º):

Angles formed by three landmarks were measured in degrees

References

  1. Sakran KA, Yin J, Yang R, Alkebsi K, Elayah SA, Al-Rokhami RK, Holkom MA, Liu Y, Wang Y, Yang C, et al. Evaluation of Late Cleft Palate Repair by a Modified Technique Without Relaxing Incisions. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shi B, Losee JE. The impact of cleft lip and palate repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci. 2015;7(1):14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liau JY, Sadove AM, van Aalst JA. An evidence-based approach to cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(6):2216–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee YH, Liao YF. Hard palate-repair technique and facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(8):851–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richard B, Russell J, McMahon S, Pigott R. Results of randomized controlled trial of soft palate first versus hard palate first repair in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):329–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koberg W, Koblin I. Speech development and maxillary growth in relation to technique and timing of palatoplasty. J Maxillofac Surg. 1973;1(1):44–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Campbell A, Costello BJ, Ruiz RL. Cleft lip and palate surgery: an update of clinical outcomes for primary repair. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2010;22(1):43–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang B, Yang C, Yin H, Zheng Q, Shi B, Li J. Preoperative velopharyngeal closure ratio correlates with Furlow palatoplasty outcome among patients with nonsyndromic submucous cleft palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(10):962–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruneel L, Luyten A, Bettens K, D’Haeseleer E, Dhondt C, Hodges A, Galiwango G, Vermeersch H, Van Lierde K. Delayed primary palatal closure in resource-poor countries: Speech results in Ugandan older children and young adults with cleft (lip and) palate. J Commun Disord. 2017;69:1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Parwaz MA, Sharma RK, Parashar A, Nanda V, Biswas G, Makkar S. Width of cleft palate and postoperative palatal fistula–do they correlate? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(12):1559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li F, Wang HT, Chen YY, Wu WL, Liu JY, Hao JS, Luo DY. Cleft relapse and oronasal fistula after Furlow palatoplasty in infants with cleft palate: incidence and risk factors. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(3):275–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakran KA, Liu R, Yu T, Al-Rokhami RK, He D. A comparative study of three palatoplasty techniques in wide cleft palates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;50(2):191–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Losee JE, Kirschner RE. 61 facial growth and development in individuals with clefts. In: 2016. 2016.

  14. Leenstra TS, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Spauwen PH. Wound healing in beagle dogs after palatal repair without denudation of bone. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32(5):363–9; discussion 369-370.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kremenak CR Jr, Huffman WC, Olin WH. Maxillary growth inhibition by mucoperiosteal denudation of palatal shelf bone in non-cleft beagles. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7:817–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leenstra TS, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maltha JC. The healing process of palatal tissues after operations with and without denudation of bone: an experimental study in dogs. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1999;33(2):169–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoshida H, Takahashi M, Yamaguchi T, Takizawa H, Takakaze M, Maki K. Comparison of Maxillofacial Morphology Between Modified Furlow's and Modified two-Flap Palatoplasty in Orofacial Clefts During the Primary Dentition Period. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/10556656221104374.

  18. Luyten A, Bettens K, D’Haeseleer E, De Ley S, Hodges A, Galiwango G, Bonte K, Vermeersch H, Van Lierde K. The impact of palatal repair before and after 6 months of age on speech characteristics. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(5):787–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barutca SA, Aksan T, Usçetin I, Sahin D, Akan M. Effects of palatine bone denudation repair with periosteal graft on maxillary growth: an experimental study in rats. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(1):e1-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rossell-Perry P, Cotrina-Rabanal O, Figallo-Hudtwalcker O, Gonzalez-Vereau A. Effect of relaxing incisions on the Maxillary Growth after primary unilateral cleft palate repair in mild and moderate cases: a randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open. 2017;5(1):e1201.

  21. Odom EB, Woo AS, Mendonca DA, Huebener DV, Nissen RJ, Skolnick GB, Patel KB. Long-Term Incisal Relationships After Palatoplasty in Patients With Isolated Cleft Palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(4):867–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Davies A, Davies A, Wren Y, Deacon S, Cobb ARM, Chummun S. Exploring the Relationship Between Palatal Cleft Type and Width With the Use of Relieving Incisions in Primary Repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(5):659–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sakran KA, Wu M, Yin H, Wang Y, Li C, Alkebsi K, Telha WA, Zheng Q, Huang H, Shi B. Evaluation of postoperative outcomes in two cleft palate repair techniques without relaxing incisions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152:145–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakran KA, Wu M, Alkebsi K, Mashrah MA, Al-Rokhami RK, Wang Y, Mohamed AA, Elayah SA, Al-Sharani HM, Huang H, Shi B. The Sommerlad-Furlow modified palatoplasty technique: Postoperative complications and implicating factors. Laryngoscope. 2023;133(4):822–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/lary.30385.

  25. Yoshida H, Nakamura A, Michi K, Wang GM, Liu K, Qiu WL. Cephalometric analysis of maxillofacial morphology in unoperated cleft palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(5):419–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kato RM, Moura PP, Zechi-Ceide RM, Tonello C, Peixoto AP, Garib D. Comparison Between Treacher Collins Syndrome and Pierre Robin Sequence: A Cephalometric Study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(1):78–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu RT, Peck CJ, Shultz BN, Travieso R, Steinbacher DM. Racial Disparities in Cleft Palate Repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1738–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Madachi K, Takagi R, Asahito T, Kodama Y, Ominato R, Iida A, Ono K, Saito I. Cephalometric evaluation after two-stage palatoplasty combined with a Hotz plate: a comparative study between the modified Furlow and Widmaier-Perko methods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(5):539–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brito LA, Meira JG, Kobayashi GS, Passos-Bueno MR. Genetics and management of the patient with orofacial cleft. Plast Surg Int. 2012;2012:782821.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Antonarakis GS, Tompson BD, Fisher DM. Preoperative Cleft Lip Measurements and Maxillary Growth in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(6):e198–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakran KA, Yin J, Yang R, Elayah SA, Alkebsi K, Zhang S, Wang Y, Shi B, Huang H. Early cleft palate repair by a modified technique without relaxing incisions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2022. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/10556656221135288.

  32. Xu X, Kwon HJ, Shi B, Zheng Q, Yin H, Li C. Influence of different palate repair protocols on facial growth in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(1):43–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sakran KA, Wu M, Yin H, Wang Y, Li C, Alkebsi K, Telha WA, Zheng Q, Huang H, Shi B. Evaluation of Postoperative Outcomes in Two Cleft Palate Repair Techniques without Relaxing Incisions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152(1):145–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grummons DC. A frontal asymmetry analysis. J Clini Orthodont. 1987;21:448–65.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu Y, Huang H, Shi B, Wang Y. The influence of lip repair on the growth of craniofacial structures in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients with unoperated palate from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2020;31(5):1218–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Parikakis K, Larson O, Larson M, Karsten A. Facial Growth at 5 and 10 Years After Veau-Wardill-Kilner Versus Minimal-Incision Technique Repair of Isolated Cleft Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu X, Cao C, Zheng Q, Shi B. The Influence of Four Different Treatment Protocols on Maxillofacial Growth in Patients with Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip, Palate, and Alveolus. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(1):180–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dahlberg G. Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. The Indian Medical Gazette. 1941;76:440–440.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bishara SE, Iversen WW. Cephalometric comparisons on the cranial base and face in individuals with isolated clefts of the palate. Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:162–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liao YF, Yang IY, Wang R, Yun C, Huang CS. Two-stage palate repair with delayed hard palate closure is related to favorable maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(5):1503–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang M, Zhang X, Zheng C. Application of buccal fat pads in pack palate relaxing incisions on maxillary growth: a clinical study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(2):2689–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Currie K, Sawchuk D, Saltaji H, Oh H, Flores-Mir C, Lagravere M. Posterior cranial base natural growth and development: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(6):897–910.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Liao YF, Cole TJ, Mars M. Hard palate repair timing and facial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):547–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Liao YF, Mars M. Long-term effects of clefts on craniofacial morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):601–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tanino R, Akamatsu T, Nishimura M, Miyasaka M, Osada M. The influence of different types of hard-palate closure in two-stage palatoplasty on maxillary growth: cephalometric analyses and long-term follow-up. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;39(3):245–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Karsten A, Larson M, Larson O. Dental occlusion after Veau-Wardill-Kilner versus minimal incision technique repair of isolated clefts of the hard and soft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(5):504–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kappen I, Yoder WR, Mink van der Molen AB, Breugem CC. Long-term craniofacial morphology in young adults treated for a non-syndromal UCLP: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(4):504–17.

  48. Silva Filho OG, Calvano F, Assunção AG, Cavassan AO. Craniofacial morphology in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison of two surgical protocols. Angle Orthod. 2001;71(4):274–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnston CD, Leonard AG, Burden DJ, McSherry PF. A comparison of craniofacial form in Northern Irish children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with different primary surgical techniques. The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. 2004;41(1):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fudalej PS, Katsaros C, Dudkiewicz Z, Bergé SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Cephalometric outcome of two types of palatoplasty in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51(2):144–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shibasaki Y, Ross RB. Facial growth in children with isolated cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1969;6:290–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. da Silva Filho OG, Rosa LA, LaurisRde C. Influence of isolated cleft palate and palatoplasty on the face. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15(3):199–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Pigott RW, Albery EH, Hathorn IS, Atack NE, Williams A, Harland K, Orlando A, Falder S, Coghlan B. A comparison of three methods of repairing the hard palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):383–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim T, Ishikawa H, Chu S, Handa A, Iida J, Yoshida S. Constriction of the maxillary dental arch by mucoperiosteal denudation of the palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Corthouts P, Boels F, Van de Casteele E, Nadjmi N. Effects of various surgical protocols on maxillofacial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Plastic and Aesthetic Research. 2020;7:46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bichara LM, Araújo RC, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Impact of primary palatoplasty on the maxillomandibular sagittal relationship in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(1):50–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ebin LE, Zam NM, Othman SA. Cephalometric analysis of Malay children with and without unilateral cleft lip and palate. Aust Orthod J. 2010;26(2):165–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Farronato G, Kairyte L, Giannini L, Galbiati G, Maspero C. How various surgical protocols of the unilateral cleft lip and palate influence the facial growth and possible orthodontic problems? Which is the best timing of lip, palate and alveolus repair? literature review. Stomatologija. 2014;16(2):53–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant to B. Shi (81974147).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sadam Ahmed Elayah, Min Wu, Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology &, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

    Sadam Ahmed Elayah, Min Wu, Jiayi Yin, Hamza Younis, Yang Li & Bing Shi

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen

    Sadam Ahmed Elayah, Karim Ahmed Sakran & Waseem Saleh Al-Gumaei

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Thamar University, Thamar, Yemen

    Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi

  4. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases and Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Waseem Saleh Al-Gumaei

  5. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China

    Ibtehal Almagrami

  6. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Ibn Al-Nafis University for Medical Sciences, Sana’a, Yemen

    Nadia E. Alqadasy

Authors
  1. Sadam Ahmed Elayah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiayi Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karim Ahmed Sakran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Waseem Saleh Al-Gumaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hamza Younis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ibtehal Almagrami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nadia E. Alqadasy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Bing Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.A.E, M.W and E.A.A, and contributed to data collection, interpretation of data, designing the study and writing the original manuscript. H.Y. prepared figures.

All other authors have critically revised the manuscript and approved the final one before its submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yang Li or Bing Shi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Subject Review Board and Ethical Scientific Board of Sichuan University study (No. WCHS-CRSE-2023–113-R2-P) and has been conducted by the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Each of their parents had given informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Fig. S1. Cranial Base measurements; Anterior cranial base length (S-N, Sella-Nasion); Posterior cranial base length (S-Ba, Sella- Basion); Cranial base angle (S-N-Ba, Sella-Nasion-Basion angle). Fig. S2. Maxilla measurements; Maxillary Length (Co-A, condylion - A point); Anterior Upper Facial Height (N-ANS, Nasion- anterior nasal spine); Posterior Upper Facial Height (S- PM, Sella - pterygomaxillare); Sagittal Maxillary Position (SNA, Sella-Nasion- A point angle), and Maxillary Anteroposterior Inclination (SN-PP, Sella-Nasion line- palatal plane angle). Fig. S3. Mandible measurements; Mandibular Length (Co-Gn, condylion- Gnathion); Corpus (Body) Length (Go-Gn, gonion -Gnathion); Ramus Height (Ar-Go, articular- gonion); Mandibular sagittal Position (SNB, Sella-Nasion- B point angle); Total Anterior Facial Height (N-Me, Nasion- mention); Lower Anterior Facial Height (ANS-Me, anterior nasal spine -mention), Posterior Total Facial Height (S-Go, Sella- gonion) and Mandibular Anteroposterior Inclination (MP – SN, mandibular plane- Sella Nasion line angle). Fig. S4. Intermaxillary relation measurements; Maxillo-mandibular differences (Co-Gn - Co-A, condylion- Gnathion- condylion - articular); Sagittal intermaxillary relationship (ANB, A point -Nasion - B point angle) and Palatal plane - mandibular plane (PP-MP,) angle. Fig. S5. Occlusion measurements; Occlusal plane to anterior cranial base angle (OP-SN, Occlusal plane- Sella Nasion line angle); Occlusal Plane to Frankfort horizontal plane angle (OP-FH) angle, and Occlusal plane to mandibular plane (OP-MP) angle.

Additional file 2:

Table S1. Comparison of data distribution between three groups using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elayah, S.A., Wu, M., Al-Moraissi, E.A. et al. Impact of relaxing incisions on maxillofacial growth following Sommerlad–Furlow modified technique in patients with isolated cleft palate: a preliminary comparative study. BMC Surg 23, 358 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-023-02247-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12893-023-02247-5

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us