Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Cleft Lip and Palate ResearchOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals.

Open access
Alhayek, Samar, Alsalem, Mohammed, Alotaibi, Yazeed, Omair, Aamir·2019·Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
DOI 10.1186/s40902-019-0189-1PMC PMC6363809
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to determine whether laypeople and professionals rate the facial appearance of individuals with repaired complete unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP, BCLP) similarly based on viewing full facial images. METHODS: The study followed a cross-sectional analytical design where five young patients aged 10 to 14 years, who had completed all stages of their unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate treatment (bilateral: three, unilateral: two), were evaluated by two groups. The assessment was done by laypeople and 97 qualified professionals (33 orthodontists, 32 plastic surgeons, and 32 oral and maxillofacial surgeons). Professionals were not involved in any stage of the patients' treatment. RESULTS: The facial appearance assessment of the professional groups on different facial aesthetics was significantly lower than that of laypeople, and they had higher perceived need for further treatment. On the other hand, laypeople had higher aesthetic ratings and lower perceived need for further treatment. Differences were also observed between the assessments of the professional groups. Participants who had lower aesthetic assessments of the repair tended to report a higher influence of cleft lip and palate on social activities and professional life. CONCLUSION: Differences in perception exist between healthcare professionals and laypeople. The discrepancies between the professional groups could be attributed to different treatment modalities and protocols.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40902-019-0189-1

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Assessment scale used by raters to evaluate facial aesthetics after repair
Fig. 1 Assessment scale used by raters to evaluate facial aesthetics after repairCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Adams GR (1981) The effects of physical attractiveness on the socialization process. Psychological aspects of facial form Craniofacial growth series monograph 11:25–47

Cited by

See all 25

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Alhayek, S., Alsalem, M., Alotaibi, Y., & Omair, A.
Affiliations
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
Corresponding author
Alsalem, Mohammed
ORCID
Venue
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
5-5
ISSN
  • 2288-8101 (ISSN-L)
  • 2288-8586
DOI
10.1186/s40902-019-0189-1
PMC
PMC6363809
OpenAlex
W2922063795
Cited by
25
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
  • cc-by
  • creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
Locations
  • Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Keywords
cleft lip and palate, facial appearance, facial aesthetics, cleft repair, layperson perception, orthodontists, plastic surgeons, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, pediatric patients

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.