Adverse Effects of Early Palatoplasty on Maxillary Growth in Patients with Cleft Palate: A Contemporary Systematic Review
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background:
The optimal timing of palatoplasty in cleft palate repair remains a persistent clinical controversy despite advances in cleft care protocols and surgical techniques. Evidence continues to suggest that early palate closure (before 18 months of age), although beneficial for speech development, may adversely affect maxillary growth because of fibrosis, scar contracture, and tension across craniofacial growth centers. With evolving treatment philosophies and modern multidisciplinary cleft care, an updated synthesis of recent evidence is necessary to clarify the current understanding of the long-term dentofacial consequences of early palatoplasty.
Objective:
To systematically evaluate and synthesize contemporary evidence published between 2020 and 2025 on the adverse effects of early palatoplasty on maxillary growth and craniofacial skeletal development compared with late or staged repair in patients with cleft palate.
Methods:
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A focused search of recent literature published from January 2020 to October 2025 was performed using PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies comparing maxillary growth outcomes between early (<18 months) and late (≥18 months) palatoplasty. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies involving non-syndromic cleft palate patients. Extracted outcomes included contemporary cephalometric indices (SNA, ANB, Co-A), dental arch dimensions, and occlusal classifications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Results:
Seven eligible studies (n = 865) were included. Across studies, early palatoplasty was consistently associated with reduced SNA and Co–A values, narrower maxillary arch widths, and higher GOSLON Yardstick scores, which indicate more arch constriction and maxillary retrusion. These effects were lessened but not completely eliminated by muscle-preserving and two-stage palatoplasty procedures.
Conclusion:
Measurable adverse effects on maxillary growth are linked to early palatoplasty. The timing of surgery should be patient oriented, weighing the advantages of early speech against the long-term results of craniofacial growth.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Share
References
1, Salari N, Darvishi N, Heydari M, Bokaee S, Darvishi F,
Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of cleft palate,
cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: a comprehensive
2. Paradowska-Stolarz A, Mikulewicz M, Duś-Ilnicka I.
Current concepts and challenges in the treatment of
cleft lip and palate patients: a comprehensive review.
J Pers Med. 2022;12(12):2089.
3. Shaw W, Semb G, Lohmander A, et al. Timing of
Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS): protocol for a
randomised trial of palate surgery at 6 months versus
12 months of age. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e029780.
4. Gamble C, Persson C, Willadsen E, et al. Timing of
primary surgery for cleft palate. N Engl J Med.
2023;389(9):795–807.
5. Novakova M, Brysova A, Vokurkova J, Marcian P,
Borak L, Koskova O. Impact of early cleft lip and
palate surgery on maxillary growth in 5- and 10-yearold patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a
cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health.
2024;24(1):1316.
6. Naidu P, Yao CA, Chong DK, Magee WP 3rd. Cleft
palate repair: a history of techniques and variations.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(3):e4019.
7. Shi B, Losee JE. The impact of cleft lip and palate
repair on maxillofacial growth. Int J Oral Sci.
2015;7(1):14–17.
8. Lehner B, Wiltfang J, Strobel-Schwarthoff K, Benz M,
Hirschfelder U, Neukam FW. Influence of early hard
palate closure in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and
15. Otsuki K, Yamanishi T, Enomoto A, et al. Maxillary
development and dental arch relationships following
early two-stage palatoplasty: a comparative study.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(3):400–408.
16. Liao YF, Mars M. Long-term effects of palate repair on
craniofacial morphology in patients with unilateral
cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.
2005;42(6):594–600.
17. Liao YF, Mars M. Hard palate repair timing and facial
growth in cleft lip and palate: a systematic review.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):563–570.
18. Salgado KR, Wendt AR, Fagundes NCF, Maia LC,
Normando D, Leao PB. Early or delayed palatoplasty
in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients? A
systematic review of the effects on maxillary growth. J
Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47(11):1690–1698.
19. Rohrich RJ, Rowsell AR, Johns DF, et al. Timing of hard
palatal closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(2):236–246.
20. Shetty V, Sreekumar C, Patteta NK, Bahl D, Sailer HF.
Correlation between surgical protocols for
palatoplasty and midfacial growth in cleft lip and
palate patients: a long-term, single-centre study. J
Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(11):1010–1019.
21. Singhania S, Bhojraj N. Early maxillary dentoalveolar
changes in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate
after palatal repair: a pilot study. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 2022;59(12):1546–1554.
22. Ozawa TO, Dutka JCR, Garib D, et al. Influence of
surgical technique and timing of primary repair on
interarch relationship in UCLP: a randomized clinical
trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021;24(2):288–295.
23. Alforaidi S, Zreaqat M, Hassan R. Dental arch
relationships of Saudi children with unilateral cleft lip
and palate. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2023;24(12):
987–990.
24. Harada T, Yamanishi T, Kurimoto T, et al. Long-term
morphological changes of the velum and the
nasopharynx in patients with cleft palate. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J. 2022;59(10):1264–1270.