Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 41
  • /
  • Pages.5.1-5.5
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals

  • Alhayek, Samar (Preventive Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences) ;
  • Alsalem, Mohammed (Preventive Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences) ;
  • Alotaibi, Yazeed (Preventive Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences) ;
  • Omair, Aamir (Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences)
  • Received : 2018.11.05
  • Accepted : 2019.01.13
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The present study aimed to determine whether laypeople and professionals rate the facial appearance of individuals with repaired complete unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP, BCLP) similarly based on viewing full facial images. Methods: The study followed a cross-sectional analytical design where five young patients aged 10 to 14 years, who had completed all stages of their unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate treatment (bilateral: three, unilateral: two), were evaluated by two groups. The assessment was done by laypeople and 97 qualified professionals (33 orthodontists, 32 plastic surgeons, and 32 oral and maxillofacial surgeons). Professionals were not involved in any stage of the patients' treatment. Results: The facial appearance assessment of the professional groups on different facial aesthetics was significantly lower than that of laypeople, and they had higher perceived need for further treatment. On the other hand, laypeople had higher aesthetic ratings and lower perceived need for further treatment. Differences were also observed between the assessments of the professional groups. Participants who had lower aesthetic assessments of the repair tended to report a higher influence of cleft lip and palate on social activities and professional life. Conclusion: Differences in perception exist between healthcare professionals and laypeople. The discrepancies between the professional groups could be attributed to different treatment modalities and protocols.

Keywords

References

  1. Schwitze J, Albino F, Mathis R, Scott A, Gamble L, Baker S (2015) Assessing patient-reported outcomes following orthognathic surgery and osseous genioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 26(8):2293-2298 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000001983
  2. Kandasamy R, Aziza A, Shazia S (2011) Pattern of craniofacial anomalies seen in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Annals of Saudi Medicine 31(5):488 https://doi.org/10.4103/0256-4947.84626
  3. Sinko K, Jagsch R, Prechtl V, Watzinger F, Hollmann K, Baumann A (2005) Evaluation of esthetic, functional, and quality-of-life outcome in adult cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 42(4):355-361 https://doi.org/10.1597/03-142.1
  4. Katzel EB, Basile P, Koltz PF, Marcus JR, Girotto JA (2009) Current surgical practices in cleft care: cleft palate repair techniques and postoperative care. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(3):899-906 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03824
  5. De La Pedraja J, Erbella J, McDonald WS, Thaller S (2000) Approaches to cleft lip and palate repair. J Craniofac Surg. 11(6):562-571 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200011060-00009
  6. Molsted K (1999) Treatment outcome in cleft lip and palate: issues and perspectives. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 10:225-239 https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411990100020801
  7. Jabbari F, Hakelius M, Thor A, Reiser E, Skoog V, Nowinski D (2017) Skoog primary periosteoplasty versus secondary alveolar bone grafting in unilateral cleft lip and alveolus. Plast Reconstr Sur 139(1):137-148 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002910
  8. Friede H, Katsaros C (1998) Current knowledge in cleft lip and palate treatment from an orthodontist's point of view. J Orofac Ortho 59(6):313-330 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01299768
  9. Marcusson A, Paulin G, Ostrup L (2002) Facial appearance in adults who had cleft lip and palate treated in childhood. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 36(1):16-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/028443102753478327
  10. Thompson A, Kent G (2001) Adjusting to disfigurement: processes involved in dealing with being visibly different. Clin Psychol Rev 21:663-682 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00056-8
  11. Berk NW, Cooper ME, Liu YE, Marazita ML (2001) Social anxiety in Chinese adults with oral-facial clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 38:126-133 https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0126_saicaw_2.0.co_2
  12. Kerr W, O'Donnell J (1990) Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 17:299-304 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.17.4.299
  13. Cochrane S, Cunningham S, Hunt N (1999) A comparison of the perception of facial profiles by the general public and 3 groups of clinicians. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 14:291-295
  14. Mani MR, Semb G, Andlin-Sobocki A (2010) Nasolabial appearance in adults with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: relation between professional and lay rating and patients' satisfaction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 44(4-5):191-198 https://doi.org/10.3109/02844311.2010.499671
  15. Trulsson U, Strandmark M, Mohlin B, Berggren U (2002) A qualitative study of teenagers' decisions to undergo orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance. J Orthod 29(3):197-204 https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/29.3.197
  16. Mayo KH, Vig KD, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ (1991) Attitude variables of dentofacial deformity patients: demographic characteristics and associations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 49(6):594-602 https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(91)90341-I
  17. Ritter K, Trotman CA, Phillips C (2002) Validity of subjective evaluations for the assessment of lip scarring and impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 39(6):587-596 https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0587_voseft_2.0.co_2
  18. Paiva TS, Andre M, Paiva WS, Mattos BS (2014) Aesthetic evaluation of the nasolabial region in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate comparing expert versus nonexperience health professionals. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/460106
  19. Pitak-Arnnop P, Hemprich A, Dhanuthai K, Yildirim V, Pausch NC (2011) Panel and patient perceptions of nasal aesthetics after secondary cleft rhinoplasty with versus without columellar grafting. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 39(5):319-325 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2010.07.007
  20. Broder HL, Smith FB, Strauss RP (1994) Effects of visible and invisible orofacial defects on self-perception and adjustment across developmental eras and gender. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 31(6):429-436 https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_1994_031_0429_eovaio_2.3.co_2
  21. Papamanou DA, Gkantidis N, Topouzelis N, Christou P (2011) Appreciation of cleft lip and palate treatment outcome by professionals and laypeople. Eur J Orthod 34(5):553-560 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr073
  22. Chung EH, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Yen SL (2013) Clinicians and laypeople assessment of facial attractiveness in patients with cleft lip and palate treated with LeFort I surgery or late maxillary protraction. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77(9):1446-1450 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.05.042
  23. Tobiasen JM, Hiebert JM, Boraz RA (1991) Development of scales of severity of facial cleft impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 28(4):419-424 https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1991)028<0419:dososo>2.3.co;2
  24. Lj L, Wong FH, Mardini S (2002) Assessment of bilateral cleft lip nose deformity: a comparison of results as judged by cleft surgeons and laypersons. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:733-741 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200209010-00001
  25. Foo P, Sampson W, Roberts R, Jamieson L, David D (2011) Facial aesthetics and perceived need for further treatment among adults with repaired cleft as assessed by cleft team professionals and laypersons. Eur J Orthod 35(3):341-346 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr129
  26. Adams GR (1981) The effects of physical attractiveness on the socialization process. Psychological aspects of facial form Craniofacial growth series monograph 11:25-47
  27. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Casey RJ, Ritter JM, Rieser-Danner LA, Jenkins VY (1987) Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype. J Appl Dev Psychol 23(3):363 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.3.363

Cited by

  1. Outcome measures in cleft lip and palate: An Indian perspective vol.7, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4103/jclpca.jclpca_22_20
  2. Sagittal Relationship between the Maxillary Central Incisors and the Forehead in Digital Twins of Korean Adult Females vol.11, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030203
  3. Atypical Outcomes of Nasal and Lip Appearance After Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair: Judgment by Professionals, Patients, and Laypeople vol.58, pp.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620982801
  4. Parent and Patient Reported Outcomes for Head Shape in Children Undergoing Surgery for Single Suture Synostosis vol.33, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000008117