ABSTRAK
Tujuan: Untuk menganalisis perbedaan sefalometri morfologi wajah di antara orang dewasa dengan UCLA, UCLP, BCLA dan BCLP yang tidak dioperasi dibandingkan dengan kelompok kontrol (non-cleft). Bahan dan metode: Penelitian retrospektif ini menganalisis sefalogram dari subjek dengan UCLA (n= 160), UCLP (n=59), BCLA (n=21) dan BCLP (n=13) dibandingkan kelompok kontrol/non-cleft (n= 52). Sefalogram dipindai pada 16-bit scanner flat bed (EPSON Expression 10000XL) pada resolusi 300 dpi. Semua sefalogram yang diubah menjadi digital oleh seorang pengamat komersial memakai software (Viewbox 3 dhal Software, Kiffisia, Yunani). Sefalometri dianalisis sesuai dengan protokol modifikasi Eurocleft. Perbedaan sefalometri morfologi wajah di antara mereka dianalisis secara statistik. Hasil: Posisi maksila (s-n-ss/SNA), posisi mandibula (S-N-Pg) dan hubungan rahang sagital (ss-n-sm/ANB) berbeda secara signifikan antara kelompok kontrol dan semua kelompok cleft (nilai p antara 0.001 dan 0.042); kelompok cleft sudutnya lebih besar dibandingkan kelompok kontrol. Posisi maksila dan mandibula arah antero posterior berbeda antara kelompok UCLA dan UCLP, juga antara kelompok BCLA dan BCLP. Inklinasi gigi insisif atas terhadap palatal plane (ILS/NL) dan sudut interincisal tidak berbeda secara signifikan antara kelompok kontrol dan semua kelompok cleft. Kesimpulan: Pada kelompok cleft dewasa yang tidak dioperasi, rahang atas menunjukkan secara morfologis lebih ke depan (s-n-ss / SNA) daripada kelompok kontrol. Morfologi wajah kelompok cleft dewasa yang tidak dioperasi tampaknya dapat tumbuh normal pada arah anteroposterior. Setiap jenis cleft memiliki karakteristik sefalometri morfologi sendiri.

---

ABSTRACT
Objective: To analyze cephalometric facial morphology among adult, unoperated UCLA, UCLP, BCLA. BCLP and the control group (non-cleft). Materials and methods: This retrospective study analyzed the cephalograms of 160 subjects with UCLA, 59 with UCLP, 21 with BCLA, 13 with BCLP and 52 the control (non-cleft group). The cephalograms were scanned on a 16-bit flatbed scanner (EPSON Expression 10000XL) at a resolution of 300 dpi. All cephalograms were digitized by one observer with commercially available software (Viewbox 3 dHal Software, Kiffisia, Greece). The lateral cephalograms were analyzed according to a modified Eurocleft protocol. Differences in cephalometric facial morphology among them were analyzed statistically. Results: Maxillary prominence (s-n-ss/SNA), mandibular prominence (S-N-Pg) and sagittal jaw relationship (ss-n-sm/ANB) differed significantly between the control group and all cleft groups (p-values between 0.001 and 0.042), being larger in the cleft groups. Maxillary and mandibular prominence differed between UCLA and UCLP and either BCLA and BCLP. Upper incisor inclination to palatal plane (ILS/NL) and the interincisal angle did not differ significantly between the control and all cleft groups. There was also no significant difference between the unilateral cleft groups and between the bilateral cleft groups. Conclusions: In the adult unoperated cleft groups, the maxilla showed more prominent (s-n-ss/SNA) than the control group. The facial morphology of adult untreated cleft groups seems potentially normal development in anteroposterior direction. Each type of cleft has its own characteristic cephalometric morphology