2017 Volume 42 Issue 1 Pages 19-26
The cases of patients with cleft lip and/or palate （CLP） who were treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Matsumoto Dental University Hospital, were clinico-statistically compared between two 10-year periods （first period: 1995 to 2004; second period: 2005 to 2014）.
1.In total, 183 and 149 CLP patients were treated during the first and second periods, respectively.
2.The patients’ cleft morphology was as follows. First period: unilateral cleft lip and palate （UCLP）, 87 patients （47.5%）; cleft palate （CP）, 33 patients （18.0%）; bilateral cleft lip and palate （BCLP）, 33 patients （18.0%）. Second period: UCLP, 65 patients （44.3%）; CP, 32 patients （21.0%）; and BCLP, 25 patients （16.8%）. Patients with UCLP or CP accounted for high proportions of the CLP patients during both periods.
3.The mean age of the patients at the first visit was significantly higher during the first period （8 years and 6 months） than during the second period （6 years and 6 months）.
4.As for the source of referrals to our hospital, the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine （Shin Univ）, accounted for 50.3% of referrals, and the Department of Plastic Surgery, Nagano Children’s Hospital （Child Hos）, was responsible for 15.3% during the first period, whereas during the second period Shin Univ accounted for 32.9% of referrals, and Child Hos for 49.0%. These two hospitals were responsible for high proportions of the referrals to our hospital during both periods.
5.The distribution of the CLP patients’ homes was as follows: 60 patients （36.1%） lived in Matsumoto district, and 31 patients （16.9%） lived in Suwa district during the first period, whereas 68 patients （45.6%） lived in Matsumoto district and 34 patients lived in Suwa district （22.8%） during the second period. High proportions of the CLP patients lived in the central area of Nagano Prefecture in both periods.
6.Regarding the classification of crossbite, type 2 （total cross bite） crossbite was most common （34.4%）, and type 4 crossbite （anterior crossbite） accounted for 18.6% of cases during the first period, whereas type 4 crossbite was most common （38.9%） and type 2 accounted for 14.1% of cases during the second period. The frequencies of total and anterior crossbite decreased and increased, respectively.
