Comparison of professional and laypeople
evaluation of nasolabial esthetics following unilateral cleft lip repair

Adekunle Moses Adetayo; Modupe Olusola Adetayo; Oguntade Funmi A; Mayowa Solomon Somoye; Michael O Adeyemi; Wasiu Lanre Adeyemo

doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_31_18

European Journal of Dentistry, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(04): 516-522
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_31_18

Original Article

Dental Investigation Society

Comparison of professional and laypeople evaluation of nasolabial esthetics following unilateral cleft lip repair

Adekunle Moses Adetayo

¹Department of Surgery, Benjamin Carson Snr School of Medicine, Babcock University, Ogun State, Nigeria

²Department of Surgery, Dental Unit, Babcock University Teaching Hospital, Ogun State, Nigeria

,

Modupe Olusola Adetayo

³Department of Biochemistry, Benjamin Carson Snr School of Medicine, Ogun State, Nigeria

,

Oguntade Funmi A

¹Department of Surgery, Benjamin Carson Snr School of Medicine, Babcock University, Ogun State, Nigeria

⁴Department of Anaesthesia, Babcock University Teaching Hospital, Ogun State, Nigeria

,

Mayowa Solomon Somoye

⁵Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos State, Nigeria

,

Michael O Adeyemi

⁵Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos State, Nigeria

,

Wasiu Lanre Adeyemo

⁵Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos State, Nigeria

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The objective is to know the extent of agreement of clinicians' perception of nasolabial esthetic compared to that of laypeople (parents). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study of comparison of clinician's perception of nasolabial esthetics with that of laypeople following surgical repair of UCL. Participants were recruited from the Cleft Clinic of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, and surgical repair of the cleft was performed under general anesthesia. Surgical evaluation was done through direct clinical evaluation using the modified form of the Christofides' criteria by laypeople and professionals. Results: A total of 48 cleft participants were enrolled in the study. The evaluation of the lip by both the laypeople and professionals was similar, and there was no difference (0.588) in their rating. However, there was a significant disagreement (P = 0.001) between them in the nose assessment. Conclusion: Neither the solitary opinion of the professionals nor that of the laypeople is satisfactory in the evaluation of facial esthetics; both are equally important, especially in the assessment of nasal esthetics. However, opinion of either the laypeople or the professional might be enough in the evaluation of the lip esthetics.

Key words:

Evaluation - laypeople - professionals - unilateral cleft lip and palate

Full Text

References

REFERENCES
1 Marazita ML, Mooney MP. Current concepts in the embryology and genetics of cleft lip and cleft palate. Clin Plast Surg 2004; 31: 125-40
2 Butali A, Adeyemo WL, Mossey PA, Olasoji HO, Onah II, Adebola A. et al. Prevalence of orofacial clefts in Nigeria. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2014; 51: 320-5
3 Nwoku AL Experiences on the surgical repair of unoperated adult cleft patients in Nigeria. Nig Med J 1976; 4: 417-21
4 Amaratunga NA. Combining Millard's and Cronin's methods of unilateral cleft lip repair – A comparative study. Asian J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 16: 5-9
5 Pieter N. Unilateral cleft lip and palate: Treatment outcome and long term craniofacial growth. Benda Drukkers, Wijchen, Netherlands: Proefschrift Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; 2006: p. 1-35
6 Gkantidis N, Papamanou DA, Christou P, Topouzelis N. Aesthetic outcome of cleft lip and palate treatment. Perceptions of patients, families, and health professionals compared to the general public. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013; 41: e105-10
7 Rullo R, Carinci F, Mazzarella N, Festa VM, Farina A, Morano D. et al. Delaire's cheilorhinoplasty: Unilateral cleft aesthetic outcome scored according to the EUROCLEFT guidelines. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 70: 463-8
8 Farkas LG, Hajnis K, Posnick JC. Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993; 30: 1-2
9 Al-Omari I, Millett DT, Ayoub AF. Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: A review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42: 145-56
10 Thittiwong R, Manosudprasit M, Wangsrimongkol T, Kongsomboon S, Pitiphat W, Chowchuen B. et al. Evaluation of facial appearance among patients with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: Comparison of patient- and clinician-ratings of satisfaction. J Med Assoc Thai 2015; 98 (Suppl. 07) S68-76
11 Chung EH, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Yen SL. 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 2013; 77: 1446-50
12 Zhu S, Jayaraman J, Khambay B. Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with cleft lip and palate by laypeople and professionals: A Systematic literature review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2016; 53: 187-96
13 Eichenberger M, Staudt CB, Pandis N, Gnoinski W, Eliades T. Facial attractiveness of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and of controls assessed by laypersons and professionals. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36: 284-9
14 Coghlan BA, Matthews B, Pigott RW. A computer-based method of measuring facial asymmetry Results from an assessment of the repair of cleft lip deformities. Br J Plast Surg 1987; 40: 371-6
15 Cussons PD, Murison MS, Fernandez AE, Pigott RW. A panel based assessment of early versus no nasal correction of the cleft lip nose. Br J Plast Surg 1993; 46: 7-12
16 Roberts-Harry D, Stephens CD. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1991; 18: 152-3
17 Tobiasen JM, Hiebert JM, Boraz RA. Development of scales of severity of facial cleft impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991; 28: 419-24
18 Lo LJ, Wong FH, Mardini S, Chen YR, Noordhoff MS. Assessment of bilateral cleft lip nose deformity: A comparison of results as judged by cleft surgeons and laypersons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110: 733-8
19 Sinko K, Jagsch R, Prechtl V, Watzinger F, Hollmann K, Baumann A. et al. Evaluation of esthetic, functional, and quality-of-life outcome in adult cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42: 355-61
20 Willams HB. A method of assessing cleft lip repairs: Comparison of LeMesurier and Millard techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 1968; 41: 103-7
21 Eliason MJ, Hardin MA, Olin WH. Factors that influence ratings of facial appearance for children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991; 28: 190-3
22 Foo P, Sampson W, Roberts R, Jamieson L, David D. Facial aesthetics and perceived need for further treatment among adults with repaired cleft as assessed by cleft team professionals and laypersons. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 341-6
23 Christofides E, Potgieter A, Chait L. A long term subjective and objective assessment of the scar in unilateral cleft lip repairs using the Millard technique without revisional surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59: 380-6
24 Marcusson A, Paulin G, Östrup L. Facial appearance in adults who had cleft lip and palate treated in childhood. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2002; 36: 16-23
25 Trotman CA, Phillips C, Faraway JJ, Ritter K. Association between subjective and objective measures of lip form and function: An exploratory analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2003; 40: 241-8
26 Tobiasen JM. Social judgments of facial deformity. Cleft Palate J 1987; 24: 323-7
27 Al-Omari I, Millett DT, Ayoub A, Bock M, Ray A, Dunaway D. et al. An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2003; 40: 530-7
28 Prahl C, Prahl-Andersen B, van 't Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Infant orthopedics and facial appearance: A randomized clinical trial (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006; 43: 659-64
29 Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 402-8
30 Asher-McDade C, Roberts C, Shaw WC, Gallager C. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991; 28: 385-90
31 Nollet PJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Chatzigianni A, Semb G, Shaw WC, Bronkhorst EM. et al. Nasolabial appearance in unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate: A comparison with eurocleft. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35: 278-86
32 Papamanou DA, Gkantidis N, Topouzelis N, Christou P. Appreciation of cleft lip and palate treatment outcome by professionals and laypeople. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 553-60
33 Mani M, Reiser E, Andlin-Sobocki A, Skoog V, Holmström M. Factors related to quality of life and satisfaction with nasal appearance in patients treated for unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2013; 50: 432-9
34 Offert B, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Dudkiewicz Z, Brudnicki A, Katsaros C, Fudalej PS. et al. Facial esthetics in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate 3 years after alveolar bonegrafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age. Orthod Craniofac Res 2013; 16: 36-43
35 Horswell BB, Castiglione CL, Poole AE, Assael LA. The double-reversing Z-plasty in primary palatoplasty: Operative experience and early results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993; 51: 145-9