The objective of this study was to test a new method, a Standardized Way to Assess Grafts (SWAG), to rate alveolar bone graft (ABG) outcomes for patients with cleft lip and palate.
Design
This was a retrospective comparison using the SWAG scale.
Setting
This study took place in four cleft palate centers with different treatment protocols.
Methods
A total of 160 maxillary occlusal radiographs taken 3 to 18 months post-ABG for sequentially treated patients with cleft lip and palate were assessed using the SWAG scale. Radiographs were scanned, standardized, blinded, and rated by 6 calibrated orthodontists to assess vertical thirds, bony root coverage, and complete bony fill. All radiographs were rated twice, 24 hours apart, by the same raters.
Main Outcomes
Intra- and interrater reliabilities were assessed.
Results
Intrarater reliability was good to very good (.760; .652–.834), and interrater reliability was moderate to good (.606; .569–.681), comparable to previously published methods.
Conclusions
Rater reliabilities were shown to be comparable to or better than existing methods. The SWAG method was validated for ABG assessments in the mixed and permanent dentitions based on reliabilities in an intercenter outcome comparison.
AltmanD.G.Practical Statistics for Medical Research.London: Chapman & Hall; 1991: 403–409.
2.
American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.Parameters for the evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. Available at http://www.acpa-cpf.org/uploads/site/Parameters_Rev_2009.pdf. 2009. Accessed August 2014.
3.
BerglandO., SembG., AbyholmF.E.Elimination of the residual alveolar cleft by secondary bone grafting and subsequent orthodontic treatment.Cleft Palate J.1986; 23: 175–205.
4.
BoleyS.A New Method for Assessing Outcomes of Bone Grafting in Cleft Patients and Intra-Center Audit of Alveolar Bone Grafting Outcomes From Different Surgeons.Philadelphia, PA: Albert Einstein Medical Center; 2010. Dissertation.
5.
BoyneP.J., SandsN.R.Secondary bone grafting of residual alveolar and palatal clefts.J Oral Surg.1972; 30: 87–92.
6.
DempfR., TeltzrowT., KramerF.J., HausamenJ.E.Alveolar bone grafting in patients with complete clefts: a comparative study between secondary and tertiary bone grafting.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002; 39: 18–25.
7.
EnemarkH., Sindent-PedersenS., BundgaardM.Long-term results after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1987; 45: 913–919.
8.
FeichtingerM., MossböckR., KärcherH.Assessment of bone resorption after secondary alveolar bone grafting using three-dimensional computed tomography: a three year study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2007; 44: 142–148.
9.
FleissJl, CohenJ.The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability.Educ Psychol Meas.1973; 33: 613–661.
10.
HathawayR., DaskalogiannakisJ., MercadoA., RussellK., LongR.E., CohenM., SembG., ShawW.The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 2. Dental arch relationships.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 244–251.
11.
HonmaK., KobayashiT., NakajimaT., HayasiT.Computed tomographic evaluation of bone formation after secondary bone grafting of alveolar clefts.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.1999; 57: 1209–1213.
12.
HynesP.J., EarleyM.J.Assessment of secondary alveolar bone grafting using a modification of the Bergland grading system.Br J Plast Surg.2003; 56: 630–636.
13.
KindelanJ.D., NashedR.R., BromigeM.R.Radiographic assessment of secondary autogenous alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997; 34: 195–198.
14.
LongR.E.Jr, HathawayR., DaskalogiannakisJ., MercadoA., RussellK., CohenM., SembG., ShawW.The Americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 1. Principles and study design.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 239–243.
15.
LongR.E.Jr, SembG., ShawW.Orthodontic treatment of the patient with complete clefts of lip, alveolus, and palate: lessons of the past 60 years.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 533.
16.
LongR.E.Jr, SpanglerB.E., YowM.Cleft width and secondary alveolar bone graft success.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1995; 32: 420–427.
17.
MercadoA.M., VigK.W.L.Orthodontic principles in the management of orofacial clefts. In: LoseeJ., KirschnerR.E. eds. Comprehensive Cleft Care.New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2009: 721–747.
18.
MøistedK., BrattströmV., Prahl-AndersenB., ShawW.C., SembG.The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 3: dental arch relationships.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 78–82.
19.
NightingaleC., WitherowH., ReidF.D., EdlerR.Comparative reproducibility of three methods of radiographic assessment of alveolar bone grafting.Eur J Orthod.2003; 25: 35–41.
20.
RosensteinS.W., LongR.E.Jr, DadoD.V., VinsonB., AlderM.E.Comparison of 2-D calculations from periapical and occlusal radiographs versus 3-D calculations from CAT scans in determining bone support for cleft-adjacent teeth following early alveolar bone grafts.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1997; 34: 199–205.
21.
RussellK., LongR.E.Jr, DaskalogiannakisJ., MercadoA., HathawayR., SembG., ShawW.A multicenter study using the swag scale to compare secondary alveolar bone graft outcomes for patients with cleft lip and palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2016; 53: 180–186.
22.
RussellK., LongR.E.Jr, HathawayR., DaskalogiannakisJ., MercadoA., CohenM., SembG., ShawW.The Americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2011; 48: 265–270.
23.
Schultze-MosgauS., NkenkeE., SchlegelA.K., HirschfelderU., WiltfangJ.Analysis of bone resorption after secondary alveolar cleft bone grafts before and after canine eruption in connection with orthodontic gap closure or prosthodontic treatment.J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2003; 61: 1245–1248.
24.
ShawW.C., BrattstromV., MoistedK., Prahl-AndersenB., RobertsC.T.The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of the treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 5: discussion and conclusions.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 93–98.
25.
ShawW.C., DahlE., Asher-McDadeC., BrattstromV., MarsM., McWilliamJ., MoistedK., PlintD.A., Prahl-AndersenB., RobertsC.A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 5. General discussion and conclusions.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 413–418.
26.
TanA.E.S., BroganW.F., McCombH.K., HenryP.J.Secondary alveolar bone grafting-five-year periodontal and radiographic evaluation in 100 consecutive cases.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 513–518.
27.
TurveyT.A., VigK., MoriartyJ., HokeJ.Delayed bone grafting in the cleft maxilla and palate: a retrospective multidisciplinary analysis.Am J Orthod.1984; 86: 244–256.
28.
WitherowH., CoxS., JonesE., CarrR., WaterhouseN.A new scale to assess radiographic success of secondary alveolar bone grafts.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002; 9: 255–260.
29.
World Health Organization.Global Strategies Towards Reducing the Health-Care Burden of Craniofacial Anomalies. Report of WHO meetings on International Collaborative Research on Craniofacial Anomalies. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Human Genetics Programme; 2002.
