Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2026
Method of Studying Palatal Fusion using Static Organ Culture
Published on: September 19, 2015
A comparison of three methods of repairing the hard palate
R W Pigott1, E H Albery, I S Hathorn
1Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust, Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Objective:
To compare growth, speech, and nasal symmetry outcomes of three methods of hard palate repair.
Patients:
Consecutive available records of children born with unilateral bony complete cleft lip and palate over the period 1972 to 1992.
Interventions:
Identical management of lip, nose, alveolus, and soft palate. Hard palate repair by Cuthbert Veau (CV) from 1972 to 1981, von Langenbeck (vL) from 1982 to 1989, or medial Langenbeck (ML) from 1989 to 1991.
Outcome Measures:
For growth: GOSLON yardstick or 5-year model index. For speech: articulation test. Nasal anemometry. For nasal symmetry: Coghlan computer-based assessment. All these measures were developed during the period of data collection but not for this project.
Results:
There was a strong trend toward more favorable anteroposterior maxillary growth with the change from CV to vL to ML techniques. This fell short of statistical significance because of the small sample size. There was a significant reduction in cleft-related articulation faults (p =.01) considered to be related to improved arch form. In the absence of improved rates of velopharyngeal insufficiency or nasal symmetry, increased surgical experience was discounted as a significant contribution to improved growth and articulation outcomes.
Conclusions:
Reduced periosteal undermining and residual exposed palatal shelf from CV to vL to ML improved incisor relationships and articulation.
