Cephalometric analysis of craniofacial morphology and growth in unrepaired isolated cleft palate patients

Xu, Yi; Yang, Chao; Schreuder, Willem H.; Shi, Jiayu; Shi, Bing; Zheng, Qian; Wang, Yan

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2014.07.003

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another orbital width (lateral) is measured from Lateroorbital of the left eye to Latero-orbital of the right eye (Lo-Lo) (See Figure 3). Between 5 to 14 years of age, this lateral skeletal width only grows about 4 mm, congruent with craniofacial growth patterns of swift early growth and subsequent passive growth until puberty [9].…”

Section: Orbital Widthsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Although no specific maturation ages were found in the studies analyzed, it is a resounding factor that male body length is larger than females and consistently lagging in maturity [25]. Also, between the ages of 5 and 7 years the mean length is 61.8 mm, which is 90.2% of the size that it is at the ages of 12 to 14 years [9]. At ages 12 to 14 years, the mean of the mandibular length is around 68.5 mm [9].…”

Section: Mandibular Body Lengthmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…So much so that at 5 years of age it has reached a little over 92% of its average adult growth, growing 11 mm from ages 1 to 5 years [3,23]. Similarly, Xu et al [9] have the distance between ages 5 to 7 years being 95% that of the distance measured at ages 12 to 14 years. Growth then continues with an average of 18 to 19 mm of expansion through 18 years, with measurements at age 10 years reaching 93.2 mm and 92.3 mm in males and females, respectively [20,23].…”

Section: Mandiblementioning

confidence: 92%

“…Figure6: Maxilla components (contains images from modified from [18,41] Figure 3), is passive until around 7 years of age [16]. From ages 5 to 7 years, mean maxillary width is 52.7 mm and thus 91% of its size at 12 to 14 years, at which age it is 57.9 mm [9]. It has increased growth rapidity as early as 5 years until age 11 years, where growth plateaus [17,20].…”

Section: Maxillamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Craniofacial Changes in Children-Birth to Late Adolescence

2019

ARC Journal of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies encompassing variation within the craniofacial complex have been conducted on separate components of the face. However, to date, lacking is a holistic description of how the juvenile craniofacial complex changes from infancy to adulthood that includes separate components in relation to the entirety of the face. Much of the current literature provides highly detailed information on growth and development of separate components. The purpose of this research was to impart an in depth understanding of juvenile craniofacial growth and development such that the distilled information may be utilized in the forensic sciences to further technologies concerning age-progression/regression, computer automated face recognition, and identification. This study involved a literature review, analysis, and consolidation of information, fromseparate facial components relative to the entirety of the face, into a singular paper. Results yielded103 sources, derived from 57 search iterations that initially provided4898 articles. These 103 sources, recognized as highly relevant, were analyzed further. Results of this analysis indicated that about 20 final articles provided the most complete information for a thorough understanding of craniofacial morphological growth and development from birth through maturation, and are explained and summarized in this paper.

show abstract

Section: Orbital Widthsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Mandibular Body Lengthmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Mandiblementioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Maxillamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Craniofacial Changes in Children-Birth to Late Adolescence

2019

ARC Journal of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, few studies focus on isolated cleft palate (ICP) patients [2,[12][13][14][15]. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact palate repair and its associated complications may have on maxillary growth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low incidence of maxillary hypoplasia in isolated cleft palate

Azouz

Patel

et al. 2020

Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The cause of maxillary growth restriction in patients with cleft lip and palate remains controversial. While studies have investigated the effects surgical technique and timing have on maxillary growth, few focus on patients with isolated cleft palate (ICP). The purpose of this study was to determine the impact palate repair and its associated complications may have on maxillary growth. Methods: A retrospective chart review of ICP patients who underwent palatoplasty from 1962 to 1999 at Akron Children's Hospital was performed. Patient demographics, Veau type, age at primary repair, closure technique, presence of fistula or velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), number of palatal operations, maxillary hypoplasia (MH) frequency, and follow-up were recorded. Exclusion criteria included patients with cleft lip, submucous cleft, or syndromes. Results: Twenty-nine non-syndromic ICP patients were identified; 62% (n = 18) had Veau type 1 and 38% (n = 11) had Veau type 2. All patients underwent 2-flap or Furlow palatoplasty with mobilization of mucoperiosteal flaps. Vomerine flaps were used in all Veau 2 cleft palate closures. Palatoplasty was performed at a mean age of 19.9 ± 8.2 months. Average follow-up was 209 ± 66.5 months. The rate of VPI was 59% (n = 17) and the rate of oronasal fistula was 14% (n = 4). Conclusions: There was a low incidence of MH despite complications after initial palate closure. Our results seem to suggest that age at palate closure, type of cleft palate, and type of surgical technique may not be associated with MH. Additionally, subsequent procedures and complications after primary palatoplasty such as VPI and palatal fistula may not restrict maxillary growth.

show abstract