Send to

Choose Destination
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997 Jan;34(1):17-20.

Gingivoperiosteoplasty and midfacial growth.

Author information

Center for Cleft and Craniofacial Anomalies, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.


The objective of this study was to report the effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on growth of the midfacial skeleton 6 years following primary surgical repair. Patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who underwent primary cleft lip and nose repair with and without gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) were retrospectively compared by means of a lateral cephalogram. Mean age at the time of evaluation was 5.7 years. All patients were treated at the Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, New York University Medical Center. All surgery and presurgical orthopedics was performed by the same surgeon and the same orthodontist. Twenty-five consecutively treated patients who presented with complete unilateral clefts of the primary and secondary palate were included in the study. Of these, 20 patients were available for 6-year follow-up cephalometric documentation and review. All patients received preoperative orthopedics with passive molding appliances, followed by repair of the lip, alveolus, and nose in a single stage at the age of 3 months. The repair was performed using the rotation/advancement technique. The difference between the two groups was whether or not gingivoperiosteoplasty was performed. The reason for not performing gingivoperiosteoplasty was incomplete approximation of the alveolar segments usually due to a late start in beginning therapy. Lateral cephalograms (68.5 months post primary surgery) were obtained and traced. Cranial base (S-N), maxilla (ANS-PNS), and mandible (Go-Pg) were digitized for shape coordinate analysis. No significant difference in the mean position of ANS-PNS was found between groups (with or without gingivoperiosteoplasty). There was, however, a significant difference in the variance of position for the points ANS-PNS between the groups (p < .002). We were unable to observe any difference (anteroposterior or supero-inferior) in the average position of the hard palate (ANS-PNS) between groups. We conclude that gingivoperiosteoplasty results in a more uniform position of the hard palate (ANS-PNS) relative to patients that did not receive gingivoperiosteoplasty. We were unable to demonstrate any clear impairment of maxillary growth in the patients treated with gingivoperiosteoplasty when compared to patients treated without gingivoperiosteoplasty.

Comment in

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center