A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.
A multicenter outcomes assessment of five-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.
复制标题
对五岁单侧唇腭裂患者的多中心结果评估。
DOI：
10.1597/04-093r.1
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Semb
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Flinn;R. Long;G. Garattini;G. Semb
客观的
比较来自三个中心、采用不同主要方案的患者 5 岁时的牙弓关系。
设计
使用牙科研究模型的盲法评估治疗结果的回顾性研究。
环境
三个主要的颅面裂中心；一个（中心 A）是独立机构，两个（中心 B 和 C）是大学医院。
患者
118 名（A = 41；B = 33；C = 44）连续接受治疗的 5 岁完全性非综合征性单侧唇腭裂患者。
干预措施
中心 A 和 C 在 18 个月时完成了初次修复，无需进行术前骨科手术（中心 A 进行了 3 次手术，中心 C 进行了 2 次手术）。 B 中心采用被动术前矫形术，在 6 个月时进行唇部/软腭修复，在 18 至 36 个月时进行牙龈牙槽成形术/硬腭修复。
主要成果衡量标准
使用 5 年标准计算每位患者的牙模平均评级。 Wilcoxon 双样本检验用于比较平均值；使用卡方检验来比较分布。
结果
检查员内部和相互之间的可靠性测试显示出出色的可靠性 (>.90)。平均分没有显着差异。分数分布差异显着。 A 中心的好分比例最高，差分比例最低（72% 比 6.5%），其次是 B 中心（63% 比 6.6%）和 C 中心（59% 比 16.3%）。
结论
A 中心和 B 中心的分数相当，但在手术技术、时机、顺序以及不使用/使用器械方面的方案完全不同。 C中心的结果略低于1和3的结果，但该中心的方案治疗负担最小（仅两次手术，不使用矫治器）。
OBJECTIVE
Compare 5-year-old dental arch relationships of patients from three centers with differing primary protocols.
DESIGN
Retrospective study of treatment outcomes using blinded evaluation of dental study casts.
SETTING
Three major cleft-craniofacial centers; one (center A) is a free-standing institution, and two (centers B and C) are university hospitals.
PATIENTS
118 (A = 41; B = 33; C = 44) consecutively treated 5-year-old patients with complete, nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate.
INTERVENTIONS
Centers A and C completed primary repair without presurgical orthopedics by 18 months (center A in three surgeries and center C in two surgeries). Center B used passive presurgical orthopedics with lip/soft palate repair at 6 months and gingivo-alveoloplasty/hard palate repair at 18 to 36 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
Averaged ratings of dental casts using the 5-year yardstick were computed for each patient. The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare means; a chi-square test was used to compare distributions.
RESULTS
Intra- and interexaminer reliability tests showed excellent reliability (>.90). Mean scores were not significantly different. Distribution of scores differed significantly. Center A had the highest percentage of good scores and the lowest percentage of poor scores (72% versus 6.5%), followed by center B (63% versus 6.6%) and center C (59% versus 16.3%).
CONCLUSIONS
Centers A and B had comparable scores and completely different protocols in surgical technique, timing, sequencing, and nonuse/use of appliances. Center C's results were slightly lower than those of 1 and 3, but the center had the protocol with the least burden of treatment (only two surgeries, without use of appliances).
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Nishiura M;Yoshinaka M;Furuya-Yoshinaka M Isogai F;Maeda Y
通讯作者：
Maeda Y