Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Occlusal Evaluation Using Modified Huddart and Bodenham Scoring System Following 2-Stage Palatoplasty With Hotz
Andrea Rei Estacio Salazar1, Yasumitsu Kodama1, Ryutaro Yuki1
1Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry & Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, Japan.
Objective:
This study aimed to determine if the change in technique of soft palate closure or timing of hard palatal repair induced occlusal changes in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP).
Design:
Retrospective study.
Settings:
A medical and dental hospital in Japan.
Subjects:
A total of 96 patients with CUCLP treated with 2-stage palatoplasty were included in the study and categorized into 3 groups (G1, G2, and G3) according to the protocol used.
Interventions:
G1 underwent soft palate repair using Perko method at 1.5 years of age and hard palate repair using vomer flap procedure at 5.5 years of age. Furlow method was used for soft palate repair in G2 at 1.5 years of age and hard palate repair using vomer flap procedure at 5.5 years of age. The Furlow method was used to repair the soft palate in G3 at 1.5 years of age and vomer flap procedure was used to repair the hard palate at 4 years of age.
Main Outcome Measures:
Two evaluators assessed the dental arch relationship using the modified Huddart/Bodenham (mHB) index on 2 separate occasions.
Results:
Intra- (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.962) and inter-examiner (ICC: 0.950) reliability showed very good agreement. The frequency of crossbite present in the major and minor segments gradually decreased with each change in protocol. Mean segmental scores showed no significant difference between 3 protocols (P > .05). Good inter-arch alignment occurred with all 3 surgical protocols (G1:82.6%, G2:89.8%, and G3:91.7%).
Conclusions:
There was no significant difference in the dental arch relationship outcomes between the 3 surgical protocols. The dentition status was comparable with all surgical protocols, even after the changes.
