Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients

Abstract Objective: To determine the difference in the effects of facemask with miniplate (FM-MP) anchorage on maxillary protraction in growing cleft patients between unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) groups. Materials and Methods: The samples consisted of a UCLP group (N = 15, 13 boys and 2 girls; mean age 10.98?years; mean protraction duration 2.37?years) and a BCLP group (N = 15, all boys; mean age 11.42?years; mean protraction duration 2.36?years), who were treated with the same surgical technique (rotation and advancement flap and double opposing Z-plasty) by one surgeon and with FM-MP by one orthodontist. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after FM-MP (T2). Fourteen skeletal and dental variables were measured. Independent and paired t-tests were performed for statistical analysis. Results: There were no differences in mean age and values of variables at the T1 stage and in the duration of protraction between the two groups. The BCLP group showed less advancement of point A than the UCLP group (ΔA-vertical reference plane, 2.51?mm vs 4.06?mm, P < .05; ΔA-N perpendicular, 0.79?mm vs 2.26?mm, P < .05; ΔSNA, 0.45° vs 2.85°, P < .01). Since counterclockwise rotation of the palatal plane in two groups was minimal (-0.36° vs -0.87°), no difference was observed with regard to clockwise rotation of the mandible (0.46° vs -0.07°). There were no differences in the degree of labioversion of the maxillary incisor (8.16° vs 7.10°), linguoversion of the mandibular incisor (-2.66° vs -2.14°), and increase in overjet (5.39?mm vs 5.70?mm) between the two groups. Conclusion: In FM-MP therapy of growing cleft patients under the conditions of this study, the UCLP group shows a more favorable change in maxillary advancement than the BCLP group.