Evaluation of nasolabial aesthetics by different groups in operated unilateral cleft lip and palate

J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Dec;121(6):672-679. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2020.01.005. Epub 2020 Jan 30.


Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and to compare the perception of nasolabial aesthetic by experienced professionals, inexperienced professionals, cleft patients and laypersons in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) using the Asher-McDade Scoring System.

Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, 75 patients who applied to Ege University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics and whose primary surgery operations were completed in Ege University, Faculty of Medicine Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, were evaluated from the extra-oral and profile photographs. All photographs were arranged according to Asher-McDade Scoring System and evaluated by 4 different groups. 5 people were evaluated in each group consisting of experienced professionals, inexperienced professionals, cleft patients and the laypersons. Nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border and nasal profile were evaluated in 5 different categories according to Asher-McDade Scoring System. Statistical analyzes were performed using STATA 11 and MEDCALC software. G Power, Fleiss Kappa, Weighted Kappa and Friedman statistical analyzes were performed for determination of number of individuals, interobserver and intraobserver reliability and comparison of scoring between groups, respectively.

Results: In this study, the interobserver agreement was found to be between 0.75 and 0.80 that shows a high degree of reliability. In the comparision made between the groups; experienced professionals and inexperienced professionals; there was moderate agreement in nasal profile scoring (WK 0.2857) (-0.9673/0.6596). There was agreement between experienced professionals and cleft patients in mostly vermilion border (WK 0.5454) (-0.1643/1.0000). There was no agreement between vermilion border between inexperienced professionals and cleft patients (WK 0.9230) (-1.0000/-0.2878), and compliance with the nasal profile mostly (WK 0.5454) (-0.1643/1.0000). There was a similar insignificant agreement between experienced and inexperienced professionals, cleft patients among the laypersons, at all values (WK 0,0000) (-0.0000/0.0000). According to the scoring results of the photographs for experienced professionals; nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border and nasal profile were evaluated as bad and close the bad (4.00±0.00, 3.80±0.44, 3.80±0.44, 3.60±0.54); it was found fair and near the bad for inexperienced professionals (3.00±0.00, 3.00±0.00, 3.40±0.54 3.20±0.44) and close the bad for cleft patients (3.60±0.54, 3.80±0.44, 3.80±0.44, 3.40±0.54). But it was found to be acceptable and good for laypersons (2.00±0.00, 2.00±0.00, 2.40±0.54, 1.40±0.54). Laypersons showed statistically significant difference in the evaluation of nasal form, nasal deviation and nasal profile from the cleft patients (P<0.05), while they showed statistically significant difference in all the score from the experienced professionals (P<0.05, P<0.01).

Conclusion: The aesthetic appearance of nasolabial region is one of the important tools to evaluate the success of the treatment in patients with CLP. The success of primary surgery has one of the most important effects for nasolabial aesthetics on patients with clefts. As a result of the study, the evaluation of cleft patients was found to be similar to that of experienced professionals and lower than that of inexperienced professionals and the laypersons. This result shows us that patients with CLP have higher awareness of self-perception, but these patients may have psychosocial problems ranging from low self-esteem to social isolation risk.

Keywords: Asher-McDade Scoring System; Experienced professionals; Inexperienced professionals; Laypersons; Nasolabial aesthetics; Unilateral cleft lip and palate.

MeSH terms

  • Child
  • Cleft Lip* / diagnosis
  • Cleft Lip* / epidemiology
  • Cleft Lip* / surgery
  • Esthetics, Dental
  • Humans
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Retrospective Studies