Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 982–992 | Cite as

The Soft Tissue Angular Analysis of Facial Profile in Unoperated Adult Patients with Unilateral Cleft Palate

  • Xi Lin
  • Hong-yi Li
  • Qing-tiao Xie
  • Tao Zhang
  • Xuan-ping Huang
  • Nuo ZhouEmail author
Original Article Craniofacial/Maxillofacial



The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in facial profile development between unoperated adult cleft palate (UACP) patients and normal controls and to analyse the reasons for the differences.

Materials and Methods

A total of 50 individuals with a unilateral cleft palate and 20 normal controls were selected to undergo angular measurement of their facial profiles. Data with significant differences between the two groups were analysed.


Seven angle measurements of the facial profile showed that the mid-facial protrusion of the UACP patients had no significant differences from the control group (p > 0.05). But their angle of the medium face (N′–Trg–Sn) was significantly lower than the non-cleft controls (p < 0.05), suggesting a worse vertical development of the middle face. A significantly larger nasal tip angle (Cm–Sn/N′–Prn) for UACP patients suggested they had a rounder and blunter nasal tip (p < 0.05). The soft tissue facial angle and chin–lip angle of UACP patients had significant differences from non-cleft controls (p < 0.05), but the head position angle (Sn–Sm–THP) had no significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05), which suggested a steep mandibular plane for UACP patients but without severe retraction of the chin.


The development of facial protrusions in UACP patients is similar to that in normal adults, but the vertical development in the middle face is insufficient. Such hypoplasia may be related to the intrinsic deficiency of the maxilla. There is a tendency for flat nasal growth and insufficient development of the chin in UACP patients.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors


Unoperated adult cleft palate patient Facial profile of soft tissue Angular analysis Mid-face development 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was approved by the Internal Review Board of the Department of the College of Stomatology at Guangxi Medical University.

Informed Consent

All patients signed informed consent forms.


  1. 1.
    Semb G (1991) A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate J 28(1):22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petersonfalzone SJ (1996) The relationship between timing of cleft palate surgery and speech outcome: what have we learned, and where do we stand in the 1990s? Semin Orthod 2(3):185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Randall P, LaRossa DD et al (1983) Cleft palate closure at 3 to 7 months of age: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 71(5):624–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan I, Ben-Bassat M, Taube E et al (1982) Ten-year follow-up of simultaneous repair of cleft lip and palate in infancy. Ann Plast Surg 8(3):227–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friede H, Enemark H (2001) Long-term evidence for favorable midfacial growth after delayed hard palate repair in UCLP patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 38(4):323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schweckendiek W (1978) Primary veloplasty: long-term results without maxillary deformity. A twenty-five year report. Cleft Palate J 15(3):268–274Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bardach J, Morris HL, Olin WH (1984) Late results of primary veloplasty: the Marburg project. Plast Reconstr Surg 73(2):207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF et al (1996) Timing of hard palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 98(2):236–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figueroa AA, Polley JW (1999) Management of severe cleft maxillary deficiency with distraction osteogenesis: procedure and results. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped 115(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oberoi S, Hoffman WY, Chigurupati R et al (2012) Frequency of surgical correction for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 23(6):1665–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olate S, Zaror C, Blythe JN et al (2016) A systematic review of soft-to-hard tissue ratios in orthognathic surgery. Part III: double jaw surgery procedures. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 44(10):1599–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henderson JL, Larrabee WF, Krieger BD (2005) Photographic standards for facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 7(5):331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee UL, Cho JB, Choung PH (2013) Simultaneous premaxillary repositioning and cheiloplasty in adult patients with unrepaired bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 50(2):231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nyberg DA, Hegge FN, Kramer D et al (1993) Premaxillary protrusion: a sonographic clue to bilateral cleft lip and palate. J Ultrasound Med 12(6):331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bitter Klaus (1992) Latham’s appliance for presurgical repositioning of the protruded premaxilla in bilateral cleft lip and palate. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 20(3):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bardach J, Kelly KM (1990) Does interference with mucoperiosteum and palatal bone affect craniofacial growth? An experimental study in beagles. Plast Reconstr Surg 86(6):1101–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang XX, Wang X, Yi B et al (2005) Internal midface distraction in correction of severe maxillary hypoplasia secondary to cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(1):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fariña R, Diaz A et al (2018) Treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate: segmental distraction osteogenesis with hyrax device. J Craniofac Surg 29(2):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Capelozza L, Taniguchi SM, Silva OGD (1993) Craniofacial morphology of adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 30(4):376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liao YF, Mars M (2005) Long-term effects of clefts on craniofacial morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 42(6):601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shetye PR, Evans CA (2006) Midfacial morphology in adult unoperated complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod 76(5):810–817Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cao C, Xu X, Shi B et al (2017) Is cleft severity correlated with intrinsic growth pattern? Observation from unoperated adult patients with submucous cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg 28:1451–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ye B, Wu Y, Zhou Y et al (2015) A comparative cephalometric study for adult operated cleft palate and unoperated cleft palate patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 43(7):1218–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Capelozza FL, Normando AD, Og DSF (1996) Isolated influences of lip and palate surgery on facial growth: comparison of operated and unoperated male adults with UCLP. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 33(1):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ross RB (1987) Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J 24(1):75–77Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liao YF, Mars M (2005) Long-term effects of lip repair on dentofacial morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J Off Publ Am Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 42(5):526–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Isiekwe MC, Sowemimo GOA (1984) Cephalometric findings in a normal nigerian population sample and adult nigerians with unrepaired clefts. Cleft Palate J 21(4):323–328Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smahel Z, Polivková H, Skvarilová B et al (1992) Configuration of facial profile in adults with cleft lip with or without cleft palate. Acta Chir Plast 34(4):190–203Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Malek FA, Miritz KU, Fanghnel J et al (2003) Sex-related differences in procarbazine-induced cleft palate and microgenia and the anti-teratogenic effect of prenatal folic acid supplementation in rats. Ann Anat 185(5):465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fernández-Riveiro P, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suárez-Quintanilla D et al (2003) Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Eur J Orthod 25:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Katzel EB, Basile P, Koltz PF et al (2009) Current surgical practices in cleft care: cleft palate repair techniques and postoperative care. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(3):899–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang Z, Stein M, Mercer N et al (2017) Post-operative outcomes after cleft palate repair in syndromic and non-syndromic children: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 6(1):52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of StomatologyGuangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations