• Users Online: 2752
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 135-138

Evaluation of dental arch relationship of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate


1 Department of Orthodontics, Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College and Research Institute, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
2 Department of Orthodontics, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Date of Web Publication7-Oct-2016

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anjuman Preet Kaur Dua
78-C, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana - 141 012, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-4003.191723

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: Several classifications have previously been described to assess dental arch relationships of cleft patients and therefore the surgical outcome. The most commonly used method for evaluation of surgical outcome is Goslon Yardstick. Another scoring system that can be used is the modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system. Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate the dental arch relationships of subjects with repaired unilateral and cleft lip and palate who come at an orthodontic center by means of Goslon and modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system and to find a correlation between the two systems. Methodology: The study models of 16 patients (9 males, 7 females) with an average age of 14.2 years (range 11–23 years) were evaluated for arch constriction by four observers which included two orthodontists and two postgraduate students. Results: The analysis of dental arch relationship using Goslon Yardstick revealed that 63% of patients ranked between Goslon 3 and 5. The mean modified Huddart/Bodenham score was −16.13. Conclusion: The study revealed that modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system provided better interobserver agreement than Goslon Yardstick by untrained observers. There was a good inverse correlation between two scoring systems.

Keywords: Goslon Yardstick, modified Huddart/Bodenham, unilateral cleft lip and palate


How to cite this article:
Dua AP, Jaiswal AK, Dua K. Evaluation of dental arch relationship of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Indian J Dent Sci 2016;8:135-8

How to cite this URL:
Dua AP, Jaiswal AK, Dua K. Evaluation of dental arch relationship of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Indian J Dent Sci [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Aug 19];8:135-8. Available from: http://www.ijds.in/text.asp?2016/8/3/135/191723


  Introduction Top


Management of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) requires a multidisciplinary approach involving the primary surgical repair of the lip at around 3 months and the palate repair at any time between 6 and 14 months.[1] Recent studies indicate that poorly performed primary surgery is likely to compromise facial growth, dental development,[2] and speech.[3] Poor surgical outcome tends to result in constriction or collapse of the maxilla,[4] and therefore, success or failure can be related to the dental arch relationships and the frequency with which the crossbite occurs. Several classifications have previously been described to assess dental arch relationships and therefore the surgical outcome.[1],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] The most commonly used method for evaluation of surgical outcome is Goslon Yardstick. The use of the Goslon Yardstick however requires a degree of professional judgment with regard to the possibility of orthodontic correction which introduces an element of subjectivity. It also requires the use of reference models for comparison, and a calibration course is necessary for its competent use. Another scoring system that can be used is the modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system. This is an objective method for evaluation of arch constriction and does not require any calibration course. In India, we have yet to standardize the treatment protocols and establish interdisciplinary centers;[10] hence, there is a need for simple, objective, and less expensive method for evaluation of arch constriction for the purpose of intercenter studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the dental arch relationships of patients with repaired unilateral and cleft lip and palate who come at an orthodontic center by means of Goslon and modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system and to determine the intra- and inter-rater agreement between several raters for both the systems. The study also aims to determine the numerical range of modified Huddart/Bodenham score for each group of Goslon Yardstick and to find a correlation between them.


  Methodology Top


The study models of 16 patients (9 males, 7 females) with an average age of 14.2 years (range 11–23 years) were evaluated for arch constriction by four observers which included two orthodontists and two postgraduate students. These patients had been surgically treated at different centers across the country. The models were evaluated twice at interval of 1 month by Goslon Yardstick and modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system. Syndromic cases and patients with a history of major orthodontic treatment were excluded from the study. Profile photographs and lateral cephalograms were evaluated while using Goslon Yardstick. According to Goslon Yardstick, models were ranked from Group 1 to Group 5 depending on the requirement of orthodontic treatment and orthognathic procedures for achievement of normal arch relationships.[8] Group 1 requires minimal orthodontic treatment, and Group 5 requires complex orthodontic treatment along with orthognathic surgery for achievement of normal arch relationship.

In modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system, each maxillary tooth, except for the lateral incisors (which may be missing or in an abnormal position in cleft lip and palate patients), was scored (from −3 to +1) according to their buccolingual and anteroposterior relationship to the corresponding mandibular tooth.[11] Before the age of 6 years, the first permanent molars were not scored even if erupted; therefore, the maximum range of scores was -24 to +8. After the age of 6 years, the first permanent molars were scored if present as such the maximum range of scores was -30 to +10.[1]

To find out the correlation between the two scoring systems, different scores of Huddart system for each Goslon category were obtained by applying the class interval.

Statistical analysis

Goslon Yardstick: Mean percentage of patients in each group was calculated and the intra- and inter-examiner variability was calculated using Kruskal–Wallis test and Cohen's kappa statistics.

Modified Huddart/Bodenham system: Intra- and inter-examiner variability was calculated using one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests (Tukey honest significant difference [HSD] multicomparison test).

The correlation between Goslon Yardstick and modified Huddart/Bodenham system was evaluated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.


  Results Top


Evaluation by Goslon Yardstick

Mean percentage of patients who fell in each Goslon category was evaluated. Thirty-seven percent of patients belonged to each Goslon 2 and Goslon 4 category, while 13% belong to both Goslon category 3 and Goslon 5 category [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Percentage of patients in different Goslon groups.

Click here to view


Evaluation by Modified Huddart/Bodenham score

The average mean modified Huddart/Bodenham score was −3.43 for incisors, −3.3 for canines, −6.93 for premolars, and −1.85 for molars. The mean total score for the sample was −16.13.

Intra- and inter-rater reliability for Goslon

The P value for Goslon rating in Kruskal–Wallis test was 0.988. [Figure 2] shows mean kappa scores for the first and second ratings of each observer. The mean kappa scores for two ratings by each observer were in between moderate (0.551) to very good (0.826). [Figure 3] shows the mean kappa scores (strength of agreement) in between observers for two different ratings. The degree of strength of agreement in between observers was toward from moderate to substantial (in between 0.41 and 0.6) most of the time.
Figure 2: Intraobserver reliability for Goslon Yardstick.

Click here to view
Figure 3: Interobserver reliability for Goslon.

Click here to view


Intra- and inter-rater reliability for modified Huddart/Bodenham

One-way ANOVA test showed that P value was 0.996 which was more than 0.05, and hence, there was no significant difference between first and second ratings of each observer. On multicomparison by Tukey HSD statistics, P value was always >0.05 which showed that there was no significant difference in between observers at two different observations. However, the absolute value of P was 1 most of the time, which shows interrater agreement was very high and similar within different groups and subgroups [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Intra- and inter-observer reliability for modified Huddart/Bodenham system.

Click here to view


Correlation of different Goslon category to modified Huddart/Bodenham scores

Spearman's correlation coefficient showed that there was a high inverse correlation between two systems.

Calculation of different Goslon category to modified Huddart/Bodenham scores

The range of modified Huddart/Bodenham scores is from −30 to +10. The range for each Goslon category can be obtained using class interval as follows:

  • Group 1: +3 to +10
  • Group 2: +2 to −5
  • Group 3: −6 to −13
  • Group 4: −14 to −21
  • Group 5: −22 to −30



  Discussion Top


The CSAG report by Sandy et al. in 1998[12] investigated surgical outcomes in patients with UCLP in the United Kingdom in terms of dental arch relationships, facial growth, esthetics oral health, speech, and patient satisfaction. The results from the investigation were disappointing, and recommendations were made for the centralization of cleft centers, improved record keeping, and organized training for staff and intercenter audit. If standards of care are to be improved in orofacial clefting, it is essential to have a means of evaluating surgical outcome in some way such as assessment of arch constriction. The result of this study also revealed that high proportion of patients had poor dental arch relationship. None of the patients could score Goslon 1 which indicates that there is need for orthodontic treatment in all patients. Only 37% of patients ranked in Goslon 2 (favorable group), and 63% of patients were placed in Goslon 3 through Goslon 5, toward the worst side of scale [Figure 5] while 50% of our patients belonged to unfavorable Groups 4 and 5. The study suggested that the treatment outcome of patients attending our orthodontic center was not satisfactory when compared with other centers which have centralized treatment regimen. Mars et al.[2] in a six-center international study found that the patient treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital and Oslo center had good results with only 33% and 6% of patient in the unfavorable Groups 4 and 5. Unfavorable results were also reported by Hathorn et al. in 1996, where 55.5% of cases were unfavorable;[13] Bhateja et al. reported 40% of cases as poor in a study in 2001.[14] Sixty percent of cases had an unfavorable outcome in a study by Susami et al. in 2006.[15] The results from these studies suggested that unfavorable outcomes could be attributed to noncentralized treatment approach and poor treatment regimen that included multiple surgeries and radical nasal correction at the time of lip repair. The mean total modified Huddart/Bodenham score for our sample was −16.13, which again indicated unfavorable dental arch relationships. These results reinforce the need for centralization of cleft lip and palate care with a definite treatment protocol.
Figure 5: Percentage of patients in favorable (A) and unfavorable (B) Goslon group.

Click here to view


Intra- and inter-rater reliability

Altman [16] suggested that kappa value >0.8 indicates good agreement, >0.6 indicates substantial agreement, and >0.4 indicates moderate agreements. While kappa value >0.2 indicates fair agreement, <0.2 indicates poor agreement.

The lesser interobserver strength (most of the time <0.6) of agreement in comparison to intraobserver strength (most of the time >0.6) for Goslon Yardstick may be due to the nontraining of observers with calibration course, which is required for its competent use. On the other hand, modified Huddart/Bodenham system showed better strength of agreement since it is objective in nature and does not require any training (most of the time, P value was 1).

The conceptual difference between these two systems is that unlike the Huddart/Bodenham system, the Goslon scoring systems take into account the potential for orthodontic management to mask any interarch discrepancy, following surgery. An element of subjectivity based on experience is inherent in the Goslon scoring system, which in turn is likely to adversely affect the intra- and inter-rater reliability.[1]

The advantages of modified Huddart/Bodenham system are its objectivity, versatility, sensitivity, no requirement for any special training, and its ability to be applied to any cleft subgroup at any age. It is a continuous scale of severity of arch constriction rather than a categorical scale and therefore provides a greater degree of sensitivity and the ability to differentiate the severity within the categories.

Hence, in a country like India where different treatment protocol are followed at different centers and relative unavailability of research grants for calibration courses, modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system can be helpful in large-scale intercenter comparisons. This will also help in developing nationalized treatment protocols and research work.


  Conclusion Top


  • The analysis of dental arch relationship using Goslon Yardstick revealed that 63% of patients ranked between Goslon 3 and 5. The mean modified Huddart/Bodenham score was −16.13
  • Modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system provided better interobserver agreement than Goslon Yardstick by untrained observers
  • There was a good inverse correlation between two scoring systems, which confirms the reliability of modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Mossey PA, Clark JD, Gray D. Preliminary investigation of a modified Huddart/Bodenham scoring system for assessment of maxillary arch constriction in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:251-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Mars M, Asher-McDade C, Brattström V, Dahl E, McWilliam J, Mølsted K, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:405-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wyatt R, Sell D, Russell J, Harding A, Harland K, Albery E. Cleft palate speech dissected: A review of current knowledge and analysis. Br J Plast Surg 1996;49:143-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Semb G. A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991;28:1-21.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Pruzansky S, Aduss H. Arch form and the deciduous occlusion in complete unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate J 1964;30:411-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Matthews D, Broomhead I, Grossmann W, Orth D, Goldin H. Early and late bone grafting in cases of cleft lip and palate. Br J Plast Surg 1970;23:115-29.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Huddart AG, Bodenham RS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate J 1972;9:194-209.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJ, Bergland O, Semb G. The Goslon Yardstick: A new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 1987;24:314-22.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Atack N, Hathorn I, Mars M, Sandy J. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:165-70.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Long RE, Kharbanda OP. Improving treatment outcome for patients with cleft lip and palate – An historical perspective of the team concept. J Indian Orthod Soc 1999;32:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Heidbuchel KL, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Maxillary and mandibular dental-arch dimensions and occlusion in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients form 3 to 17 years of age. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:21-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Sandy J, Williams A, Mildinhall S, Murphy T, Bearn D, Shaw B, et al. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Cleft lip and palate study. Br J Orthod 1998;25:21-30.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Hathorn I, Roberts-Harry D, Mars M. The Goslon yardstick applied to a consecutive series of patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996;33:494-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Bhateja A, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Deka RC, Prakash H. Evaluation of surgical protocol and treatment need of operated unilateral cleft lip and palate patients in Delhi. Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2001;19:10-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Susami T, Ogihara Y, Matsuzaki M, Sakiyama M, Takato T, Shaw WC, et al. Assessment of dental arch relationships in Japanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006;43:96-102.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991. p. 403-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2439    
    Printed160    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded333    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]