TY - JOUR
T1 - Dental arch relationships in Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate born between 1976 and 1990: a comparison with eurocleft
AU - Dogan, S
AU - Semb, G
AU - Erbay, E
AU - Alcan, T
AU - Uzel, A
AU - Kocadereli, I
AU - Shaw, W C
N1 - Dogan, Servet Semb, Gunvor Erbay, Elif Alcan, Toros Uzel, Asli Kocadereli, Ilken Shaw, William C Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014 Jan;51(1):70-5. doi: 10.1597/11-304R1. Epub 2012 Jul 31.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study. PATIENTS: Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8-11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990. METHODS: The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P <.001, P <.001, and P <.05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P <.01, P <.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare the dental arch relationships of Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) with the results reported for participants in the Eurocleft study. PATIENTS: Study models of 109 patients with complete UCLP from five university clinics in Turkey were evaluated (clinic A = 25 patients, clinic B = 23 patients, clinic C = 20 patients, clinic D = 21 patients, and clinic E = 20 patients). The mean age of the patient cohort was nine years old (range = 8-11 years old), and the cohort was born between 1976 and 1990. METHODS: The examiners rated the three-dimensional (3D) models using the GOSLON Yardstick. The scores were compared with those from the Eurocleft centers: E1(B), E2(E), E3(A), E4(F), E5(C), and E6(D). Intra- and interexaminer agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: The mean GOSLON scores for the Turkish clinics were as follows: clinic A = 3.16, clinic B = 3.13, clinic C = 3.25, clinic D = 3.67, and clinic E = 3.70. Scores for three of the Turkish clinics (A, B, and C) were significantly worse than the scores for the three best Eurocleft centers, E1(B), E2(E), and E3(A) (P <.001, P <.001, and P <.05, respectively). Scores for two of the Turkish clinics (D and E) were similar to those for Eurocleft center E6(D) but worse than the scores for the other Eurocleft centers (P <.01, P <.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study in which three-dimensional models were used to derive scores to compare with those of the Eurocleft centers. According to the results of analysis of 109 3D models, 50.4 % of the patients in Turkey were classified as GOSLON score 4 and 5. This may have been attributable to poor surgical procedures, low-volume surgeons, and the decentralized treatment approach in Turkey between 1985 and 2000. Further research is needed to assess the situation in Turkey in more recent years.
U2 - 10.1597/11-304R1
DO - 10.1597/11-304R1
M3 - Article
SN - 1055-6656
VL - 51
SP - 70
EP - 75
JO - Cleft Palate - Craniofacial Journal
JF - Cleft Palate - Craniofacial Journal
IS - 1
ER -