Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20252757625
Revista CEFAC
Original Articles

Analysis of the clinical-epidemiological profile of patients with cleft palate referred for prosthetic treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency

Análise do perfil clínico-epidemiológico de pacientes com fissura palatina encaminhados para o tratamento protético da insuficiência velofaríngea

Kharinne Rachel Sá Vettorazzo; Maria Inês Pegoraro-Krook

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20252757625 Revista CEFAC, vol.27, n5, e7625, 2025
PDF English
PDF Português
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 824

Abstract

Purpose: to identify the number of patients referred for prosthetic treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies of the Universidade de São Paulo (HRAC/USP) and investigate their clinical and epidemiological profile.

Methods: a retrospective study using secondary data from the medical records of patients treated at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies with the Universidade de São Paulo (HRAC/USP) between 1990 and 2023, with indications for palatal prosthesis. The study collected clinical and demographic information, prosthetic and surgical history, and treatment data, and performed descriptive statistical analysis.

Results: the main indication criterion was a wide velopharyngeal gap with low pharyngeal mobility (79-80%). The average age at insertion ranged from 13 to 36 years, depending on the etiological group. Treatment completion rates ranged from 75% to 100%. Orthodontic integration was not feasible in 76-81% of congenital cases, but feasible in those without cleft palate. Speech therapy was performed in 72-82% of cases. Spontaneous velopharyngeal closure occurred in up to 6%, and secondary surgery was required in up to 11%.

Conclusion: patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction have distinct clinical profiles and needs depending on the etiology, requiring individualized protocols. Patients with congenital clefts require longer treatment, while those without clefts can begin prosthetic rehabilitation earlier. These findings reinforce the importance of specific strategies aimed at effective and personalized care.

Keywords

Velopharyngeal Insufficiency; Palatal Obturators; Cleft Palate

Resumo

Objetivo:  levantar o número de pacientes encaminhados para tratamento protético da insuficiência velofaríngea no Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais da Universidade de São Paulo (HRAC/USP) e investigar seu perfil clínico-epidemiológico.

Métodos:  estudo retrospectivo com dados secundários de prontuários de pacientes atendidos no Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais da Universidade de São Paulo (HRAC/USP) entre 1990 e 2023, com indicação de prótese de palato. Foram coletadas informações clínicas, demográficas, histórico protético e cirúrgico, além de dados sobre o tratamento. Foi realizada análise estatística descritiva.

Resultados:  o principal critério de indicação foi gap velofaríngeo amplo com baixa mobilidade faríngea (79-80%). A idade média para instalação variou entre 13 e 36 anos, conforme o grupo etiológico. A conclusão do tratamento variou entre 75% a 100%. A integração ortodôntica foi inviável em 76-81% dos casos congênitos e viável nos sem fissura. A fonoterapia foi realizada em 72-82% dos casos. Fechamento velofaríngeo espontâneo ocorreu em até 6% e cirurgia secundária foi necessária em até 11%.

Conclusão:  pacientes com disfunção velofaríngea apresentam perfis clínicos e necessidades distintas dependendo da etiologia, exigindo protocolos individualizados. Pacientes com fissuras congênitas requerem tratamento mais prolongado, enquanto aqueles sem fissuras podem iniciar a reabilitação protética mais precocemente. Esses achados reforçam a importância de estratégias específicas voltadas para um cuidado eficaz e personalizado.

Palavras-chave

Insuficiência Velofaríngea; Obturadores Palatinos; Fissura Palatina

Referencias

1. Frederick R, Hogan AC, Seabolt N, Stocks RMS. An ideal multidisciplinary cleft lip and cleft palate care team. Oral Dis. 2022;28(5):1412-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.14213 PMID: 35429208.

2. Krezel JD, Friel T, Waia S, Paul Clark CDT, Taylor D. Prosthetic rehabilitation of a repaired cleft palate with use of a two-part hinged magnet retained removable prosthesis. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(5):454-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13353 PMID: 33660377.

3. Dmytrenko MI, Smaglyuk LV, Hurzhii OV, Zenchenko DD, Romanchenko BV. Innovative approaches in complex treatment of patients with congenital unilateral complete clefts of upper lip and palate. Kharkiv Dent J. 2024;(1):94-103. https://doi.org/10.26565/3083-5607-2024-1-10

4. Cardoso JM, Santos GM, Peixoto HE, Miyasawa EM, Padovan LEM, Garcia VGG. Reabilitação funcional e estética em paciente portadora de comunicação buconasal adquirida. Rev FT. 2024;29(140):23-4. https://doi.org/10.69849/revistaft/ch10202411301023

5. Pegoraro-Krook MI, Rosa RR, Aferri HC, Andrade LKF, Dutka JCR. Pharyngeal bulb prosthesis and speech outcome in patients with cleft palate. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;88(2):187-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.05.028 PMID: 32771435.

6. Silva AM, Calumby RT, Freitas VS. Epidemiological profile and prevalence of live births with orofacial cleft in Brazil: A descriptive study. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2024;42:e2022234. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2024/42/2022234 PMID: 37729242.

7. Baradel AF. Perfil e prevalência dos tipos de fissuras dos pacientes atendidos no HRAC/USP-Centrinho nos últimos 30 anos: um estudo descritivo do contexto brasileiro [dissertation]. Bauru (SP): Universidade de São Paulo, Hospital de Reabilitação de Anomalias Craniofaciais; 2024.

8. Ruscello DM, Gallaher K, Strasser S. Speech and swallowing sequelae of palatal tissue necrosis due to drug abuse. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2016;14(6):901-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9638-6

9. Kalmar CL, Malphrus EL, Kosyk MS, Zapatero ZD, Taylor JA. Socioeconomic disparities in cleft lip care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(6):657-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221078488 PMID: 35125021.

10. Calvasina P. Rethinking health care provision for individuals with cleft lip and palate in the Brazilian Unified Health Care System. Physis Revista de Saúde Coletiva. 2024;34:e34054. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-7331202434054en

11. McDonald-McGinn DM, Sullivan KE, Marino B, Philip N, Swillen A, Vorstman JA et al. 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15071. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.71 PMID: 27189754.

12. Tanaka S, Hashizume A, Hijikata Y, Yamada S, Ito D, Nakayama A et al. Nasometric scores in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy - Effects of palatal lift prosthesis on dysarthria and dysphagia. J Neurol Sci. 2019;407:116503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2019.116503 PMID: 31669728.

13. Alberconi TF, Siqueira GLC, Sathler R, Kelly KA, Garib DG. Assessment of orthodontic burden of care in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;55(1):74-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617718825 PMID: 30278784.

14. Rizatto AJP, Lopes MMW, Souza OMV de, Aferri HC, Pinto MDB, Whitaker ME et al. Can a pharyngeal bulb prosthesis eliminate hypernasal speech in individuals with hypodynamic velopharynx? Rev. CEFAC. 2022;24(6):e8422. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20222468422

15. Tse RW, Sie KC, Tollefson TT, Jackson OA, Kirshner R, Fisher DM et al. Surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency following cleft palate repair: An audit of contemporary practice and proposed schema of techniques and variations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(10):1721-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656231181359 PMID: 37441787.

16. Raju H, Padmanabhan T, Narayan A. Palatal lift prosthesis for velopharyngeal incompetence: A case report. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14(4). https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12992

17. Nomoto A, Ohno T, Kunieda K, Kanazawa H, Shigematsu T, Hojo K et al. Evaluation of a palatal lift prosthesis with a flexible lift in a lower cranial nerve palsy patient with dysphagia using high-resolution manometry: A case report. J Prosthodont Res. 2021;65(4):573-6. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_20_00128 PMID: 33612665.

18. Flores-Ruiz R, Castellanos-Cosano L, Serrera-Figallo MA, Gutiérrez-Corrales A, Gonzalez-Martin M, Gutiérrez-Pérez JL et al. Evolution of oral cancer treatment in an Andalusian population sample: Rehabilitation with prosthetic obturation and removable partial prosthesis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(4):e518-23. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54023 PMID: 28936292.

19. Wagner C, Zimmerman CE, Barrero C, Kalmar CL, Butler P, Guevara J et al. Reduced socioeconomic disparities in cleft care after implementing a cleft nurse navigator program. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;59(3):320-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211005646 PMID: 33823655.

20. Poljak-Guberina R, Poklepovic-Pericic T, Guberina M, Celebic A. Duration and length of adaptation to new complete dentures: A survey based on patients' self-reported outcomes. Stomatol Educ J. 2022;9(1):45-53. https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2022.9(1).art.5

21. Pinto MDB, Pegoraro-Krook MD, Andrade LKF, Correa APC, Rosa-Lugo LI, Dutka JCR. Intensive treatment of speech disorders in robin sequence: A case report. CoDAS. 2017;29(5):e20160084. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016084 PMID: 29069271.

22. Yarhere KS, Akadiri OA, Akinbami BO, Obiechina AE. Predictors of fistula formation after primary palatoplasty. J Oral Med Oral Surg. 2024;30(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2024009

23. Tache A, Mommaerts MY. On the frequency of oronasal fistulation after primary cleft palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(10):1302-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619856243 PMID: 31213075.

24. Pitkänen VV, Geneid A, Saarikko AM, Hakli S, Alaluusua S. Diagnosing and managing velopharyngeal insufficiency in patients with cleft palate after primary palatoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(3):1008-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000009822 PMID: 37955448.
 

Submitted date:
06/08/2025

Accepted date:
12/09/2025

693c1303a9539514767961f4 cefac Articles
1982-0216 (Electrónico) 1516-1846 (Impreso)
Revista CEFAC ©2026 Todos los derechos reservados sobre el contenido de este sitio web. Los artículos siguen sus propias licencias.

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections