Comparison of different maxillary advancement protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a finite element analysis

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distributions and possible amount of movement in the maxillofacial region resulting from different maxillary advancement protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.Materials and methods A unilateral cleft lip and palate model (CLP model) with Goslon score 4 was created for finite element analysis. Three different protocols were compared: Group 1: usage of a face mask with elastics placed at a 30? angle to the occlusal plane over a conventional acrylic plate; Group 2: usage of a face mask with elastics placed at a 30? angle to the occlusal plane over miniplates placed in the infrazygomatic crest region; Group 3: usage of elastic from the menton plate placed in the mandible to the infrazygomatic plates in the maxilla.Results Dental effects were greater in the maxillary protraction protocol with a face mask over a conventional acrylic plate (Von Misses Stress Values; Group 1?=?cleft side:0.076, non-cleft side:0.077; Group 2?=?cleft side:0.004, non-cleft side: 0.003; Group 3?=?cleft side:0.0025; non-cleft side:0.0015), whereas skeletal effects were greater in maxillary protraction protocols with face mask using skeletal anchorage (Von Misses Stress Values; Group 1:0.008; Group 2:0.02; Group 3:0.0025). The maximum amount of counterclockwise rotation of the maxilla as a result of protraction was observed in traditional acrylic plate face mask protocol, and the minimum amount was observed by using elastics between infrazygomatic plates and menton plate.Conclusions In individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate with Goslon score 4, it was observed that the skeletally anchored face mask caused more skeletal impact and displacement than both the traditional acrylic plate face mask model and the pure skeletally supported maxillary protraction model.Clinical relevance When planning maxillary protraction treatment in patients with cleft lip and palate, it should be considered that more movement in the sagittal plane might be expected on the cleft side than the non-cleft side, and miniplate and screws on the cleft side are exposed to more stress when using infrazygomatic plates as skeletal anchorage.