Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2017; 49(04): 286-294
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-122640
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Vom Nutzen der Chirurgie und vom Nachteil der Narben

The Benefit of Surgery and the Drawback of Scars
Johannes W. Von den Hoff
1   Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen
,
Edwin M. Ongkosuwito
2   Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen
,
Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman
3   Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University Indonesia, Jakarta
,
Frank A.D.T.G. Wagener
1   Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen
,
Abdul Latif
4   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University Indonesia, Jakarta
,
Mette A. R. Kuijpers
2   Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen
,
Paola L. Carvajal Monroy
1   Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Errata: Vom Nutzen der Chirurgie und vom Nachteil der NarbenInformationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2017; 49(04): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-100013

Zusammenfassung

Die chirurgische Versorgung von Patienten mit Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumenspalte hat die Rekonstruktion der anatomischen Verhältnisse, der Funktionalität und der Ästhetik des Gesichts zum Ziel. Bei Kindern mit vollständiger Spalte sind mind. 3 chirurgische Eingriffe erforderlich: Schließen der Lippenspalte, Schließen des harten und des weichen Gaumens sowie Füllen der Spalte im Alveolarfortsatz mit Knochenmaterial. Bei Patienten mit geschlossenen Spalten kommt es zur Störung des maxillofazialen Wachstums in allen 3 Raumebenen, die mit zunehmendem Alter immer deutlicher in Erscheinung treten. Beim Verschluss der Spalte im weichen Gaumen ist die Rekonstruktion der Muskulatur der entscheidende Faktor. Die häufigste Störung nach einer Rekonstruktion des weichen Gaumens ist die velopharyngeale Dysfunktion. Man ist bisher davon ausgegangen, dass die iatrogenen Folgen eines chirurgischen Eingriffs im Gaumen von der Wundkontraktion verursacht werden. Die Bildung von Narbengewebe sowie die damit einhergehende Verbindung des Narbengewebes mit dem Gaumenknochen und den parodontalen Fasern sind jedoch wahrscheinlich die wichtigsten Faktoren. Sie behindern das Oberkieferwachstum und führen zur Kippung von durchbrechenden Zähnen nach palatinal. Die gestörte Muskelregeneration und die Fibrose im weichen Gaumen behindern die funktionelle Rekonstruktion des weichen Gaumens. Neuartige Therapieansätze auf Grundlage von Tissue Engineering könnten neue Perspektiven für die Behandlung von Spaltpatienten eröffnen. Mithilfe von Scaffolds, einer Art Gerüste, die Wachstumsfaktoren kontrolliert freisetzen, lässt sich möglicherweise die Narbenbildung und die Muskelregeneration nach der chirurgischen Korrektur des weichen Gaumens beeinflussen. Zur Entwicklung solcher funktionalisierter Gerüste ist jedoch weitere Forschung erforderlich.

Abstract

Surgical rehabilitation of patients with clefts aims at restoration of the anatomy, function and esthetics of the face. Children with a complete cleft will have at least 3 surgeries: repair of the cleft lip, hard and soft palate closure, and bone grafting of the alveolar process. Patients with a repaired cleft show disturbed maxillofacial growth in all dimensions, which becomes more apparent when they grow older. Muscle reconstruction is considered the most critical component of soft palate repair. The main morbidity associated with reconstruction of the soft palate is velopharyngeal dysfunction. It is hypothesized that the iatrogenic effects of palatal surgery are initially caused by wound contraction, but scar tissue formation and attachment of the scar tissue to the palatal bone and periodontal ligament are probably the most important features. This leads to restriction of maxillary growth and palatal tipping of erupting teeth. Impaired muscle regeneration and fibrosis of the soft palate hamper the functional recovery of the soft palate after repair. Novel therapies based on tissue engineering may offer new perspectives for the treatment of patients with cleft lip and palate. Scaffolds that give a controlled release of growth factors may influence scar formation and muscle regeneration after soft palate surgery. Further research, however, is needed in order to develop these functionalized scaffolds.

Schlüsselwörter

Gaumenspalte - Behandlungsergebnis - Chirurgie - maxillofaziale Entwicklung - Gaumenmuskulatur

Key words

cleft palate - treatment outcome - surgery - maxillofacial development - palatal muscles
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 IPDTOC Working Group. Prevalence at birth of cleft lip with or without cleft palate: data from the International Perinatal Database of Typical Oral Clefts (IPDTOC). Cleft Pal Craniofac J 2011; 48: 66-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. The orthodontist, an essential partner in CLP treatment. B-ENT 2006; 2 (Suppl. 04) 57-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 ACPA (American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association) Standards for Approval of Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Teams, 2015 edition, available through www.acpa-cpf.org
    PubMed
  • 4 Farronato G, Kairyte L, Giannini L. et al. How various surgical protocols of the unilateral cleft lip and palate influence the facial growth and possible orthodontic problems? Which is the best timing of lip, palate and alveolus repair? Literature review. Stomatologija 2014; 16: 53-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Goodacre TE, Hentges F, Moss TL. et al. Does repairing a cleft lip neonatally have any effect on the longer-term attractiveness of the repair?. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004; 41: 603-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Long RE. The influence of surgery and orthopedic treatment on maxillofacial growth and maxillary arch development in patients treated for orofacial clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000; 37: 527-1-527-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bardach J, Eisbach KJ. The influence of primary unilateral cleft lip repair on facial growth. Cleft Palate J 1977; 14: 88-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bardach J, Mooney MP. The relationship between lip pressure following lip repair and craniofacial growth: an experimental study in beagles. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984; 73: 544-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Semb G, Shaw WC. Facial growth related to surgical methods. In: Berkowitz S. (ed.) Cleft Lip and Palate. Diagnosis and Management. 3rd ed. Heidelberg/New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2013: 325-343
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Shaw WC, Semb G, Nelson P. et al. The Eurocleft project 1996–2000. Part V. Survey of current services. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2000: 267-273
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Lohmander A, Friede H, Lilja J. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closure protocol: speech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2012; 49: 657-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Liao YF, Mars M. Long-term effects of lip repair on dentofacial morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42: 526-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Will LA. Growth and development in patients with untreated clefts. Cleft Pal Craniofac J 2000; 37: 523-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Latief BS, Lekkas C, Kuijpers MA. Maxillary arch width in unoperated adult bilateral cleft lip and alveolus and complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010; 13: 82-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Derijcke A, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Lekkas C. et al. Dental arch dimensions in unoperated adult cleft-palate patients: an analysis of 37 cases. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1994; 14: 69-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Latief BS, Lekkas KC, Schols JG. et al. Width and elevation of the palatal shelves in unoperated unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients in the permanent dentition. J Anat. 2012; 220: 263-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ross RB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 1987; 24: 5-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Squier CA, Finkelstein MW. Oral mucosa. In: Nanci A. (ed.) Ten Cate’s oral histology. development, structure, and function. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2013: 329-375
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Van Beurden HE, Von den Hoff JW, Torensma R. et al. Myofibroblasts in palatal wound healing: prospects for the reduction of wound contraction after cleft palate repair. J Dent Res 2005; 84: 871-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Von den Hoff JW, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Palatal wound healing: the effects of scarring on growth. In: Berkowitz S. (ed.) Cleft Lip and Palate. Diagnosis and Management. 3rd ed. Heidelberg/New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2013: 309-324
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Clark RAF. 1996 Wound repair: overview and general considerations. In: Clark RAF. (ed) The Molecular and Cellular Biology of Wound Healing. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press; 1996: 3-35
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Greenhalgh DG. The role of apoptosis in wound healing. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 1998; 30: 1019-1030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Van De Water L, Varney S, Tomasek JJ. Mechanoregulation of the myofibroblast in wound contraction, scarring, and fibrosis: opportunities for new therapeutic intervention. Adv Wound Care 2013; 2: 122-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Desmoulière A, Redard M, Darby I. et al. Apoptosis mediates the decrease in cellularity during the transition between granulation tissue and scar. Am J Pathol 1995; 146: 56-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ehrlich HP, Desmoulière A, Diegelmann RF. et al. Morphological and immunochemical differences between keloid and hypertrophic scar. Am J Pathol 1994; 145: 105-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Spyrou GE, Naylor IL. The effect of basic fibroblast growth factor on scarring. Br J Plast Surg 2002; 55: 275-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Caley MP, Martins VL, O'Toole EA. Metalloproteinases and wound healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2015; 4: 225-234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Snoek-van Beurden PA, Von den Hoff JW. Zymographic techniques for the analysis of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors. Biotechniques 2005; 38: 73-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wijdeveld MG, Grupping EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Maxillary arch dimensions after palatal surgery at different ages on beagle dogs. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1105-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wijdeveld MG, Maltha JC, Grupping EM. et al. A histological study of tissue response to simulated cleft palate surgery at different ages in beagle dogs. Arch Oral Biol 1991; 36: 837-843
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kim T, Ishikawa H, Chu S. et al. Constriction of the maxillary dental arch by mucoperiosteal denudation of the palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2002; 39: 425-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Li J, Johnson CA, Smith AA. et al. Disrupting the intrinsic growth potential of a suture contributes to midfacial hypoplasia. Bone 2015; 81: 186-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cornelissen AM, Stoop R, Von den Hoff HW. et al. Myofibroblasts and matrix components in healing palatal wounds in the rat. J Oral Pathol Med 2000; 29: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Searls JC, Kremenak CR, Rittman BR. Quantitative characterization of changes in cellularity and collagen fiber size in contracting palatal wounds. Cleft Palate J 1979; 16: 373-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wijdeveld MG, Grupping EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Growth of the maxilla after soft tissue palatal surgery at different ages in beagle dogs: a longitudinal radiographic study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 46: 204-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Boorman JG, Sommerlad BC. Levator palati and palatal dimples: their anatomy, relationship and clinical significance. Br J Plast Surg 1985; 38: 326-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sommerlad BC. A technique for cleft palate repair. Plastic Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 1542-1548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Morris HL. Velopharyngeal competence and primary cleft palate surgery, 1960-1971: a critical review. Cleft Palate J 1973; 10: 62-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Marrinan EM, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. Velopharyngeal function in nonsyndromic cleft palate: relevance of surgical technique, age at repair, and cleft type. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1998; 35: 95-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Richman LC, Holmes CS, Eliason MJ. Adolescents with cleft lip and palate: self-perceptions of appearance and behavior related to personality adjustment. Cleft Palate J 1985; 22: 93-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Timbang MR, Gharb BB, Rampazzo A. et al. A systematic review comparing Furlow double-opposing Z-plasty and straight-line intravelar veloplasty methods of cleft palate repair. Plastic Reconstr Surg 2014; 134: 1014-1022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Butow KW, Engelbrecht H, Naidoo S. Asymmetrical soft palate cleft repair: preliminary results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 696-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Mauro A. Satellite cell of skeletal muscle fibers. J Biophys Biochem Cytol 1961; 9: 493-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Collins CA. Satellite cell self-renewal. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2006; 6: 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zammit PS. All muscle satellite cells are equal, but are some more equal than others?. J Cell Sci 2008; 121: 2975-2982
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Menetrey J, Kasemkijwattana C, Fu FH. et al. Suturing versus immobilization of a muscle laceration. A morphological and functional study in a mouse model. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: 222-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Grefte S, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Torensma R. et al. Skeletal muscle fibrosis: the effect of stromal-derived factor-1α-loaded collagen scaffolds. Regen Med 2010; 5: 737-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tatsumi R, Liu X, Pulido A. et al. Satellite cell activation in stretched skeletal muscle and the role of nitric oxide and hepatocyte growth factor. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2006; 290: C1487-C1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Montarras D, Morgan J, Collins C. et al. Direct isolation of satellite cells for skeletal muscle regeneration. Science 2005; 309: 2064-2067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Pavlath GK, Thaloor D, Rando TA. et al. Heterogeneity among muscle precursor cells in adult skeletal muscles with differing regenerative capacities. Dev Dyn 1998; 212: 495-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ono Y, Boldrin L, Knopp P. et al. Muscle satellite cells are a functionally heterogeneous population in both somite-derived and branchiomeric muscles. Dev Biol 2010; 337: 29-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Emery AE. The muscular dystrophies. Lancet 2002; 359: 687-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Carvajal Monroy PL, Grefte S, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Strategies to improve regeneration of the soft palate muscles after cleft palate repair. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2012; 18: 468-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Carvajal Monroy PL, Grefte S, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Fibrosis impairs the formation of new myofibers in the soft palate after injury. Wound Repair Regen 2015; 23: 866-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Carvajal Monroy PL, Yablonka-Reuveni Z, Grefte S. et al. Isolation and characterization of satellite cells from rat head branchiomeric muscles. J Vis Exp 2015; 101: e52802
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Carvajal Monroy PL, Grefte S, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Neonatal satellite cells form small myotubes in vitro. J Dent Res 201 96: 331-338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Chitturi RT, Balasubramaniam AM, Parameswar RA. et al. The role of myofibroblasts in wound healing, contraction and its clinical implications in cleft palate repair. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7: 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Liu J, Bian Z, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. et al. Skin and oral mucosa equivalents: construction and performance. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010; 13: 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Jung JE, Song MJ, Shin S. et al. Local myogenic pulp-derived cell injection enhances craniofacial muscle regeneration in vivo. Orthod Craniofac Res 2017; 20: 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Persson M, Sandy JR, Waylen A. et al. A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Ness AR, Wills AK, Waylen A. et al. Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6: a tale of two studies. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 56-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Smallridge J, Hall AJ, Chorbachi R. et al. Functional outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 3: oral health and audiology. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 25-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Waylen A, Ness AR, Wills AK. et al. Cleft Care UK study. Part 5: child psychosocial outcomes and satisfaction with cleft services. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 47-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Al-Ghatam R, Jones TE, Ireland AJ. et al. Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Part 2: dento-facial outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 14-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Sell D, Mildinhall S, Albery L. et al. The Cleft Care UK study. Part 4: perceptual speech outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015; 18 (Suppl. 02) 36-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Semb G.Scandcleft Project Group. Scandcleft randomized trial of primary surgery for UCLP: planning and manangement. Conference Transactions 13th International Congress of Cleft Lip and Palate and Related Craniofacial Anomalies. 8th-11th February 2017, Chennai, India, 2017; 273 – 277
    PubMed