Craniofacial cephalometric morphologies in different cleft types: a retrospective cross-sectional study of 212 patients

López-Giménez, Ana; Silvestre‐Rangil, Javier; Silvestre, Francisco-Javier; Paredes-Gallardo, Vanessa

doi:10.1007/s11282-017-0290-z

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In individuals born without clefts, Class III was related to genetic variants associated with mandibular growth 28,29 and, in individuals born with clefts, the Class III may have been due to other genetic variants 18 and iatrogenic factors. 22,25 Although not significantly different, a shorter cranial base length was seen in 17 individuals born with UCLP and Class III compared to 10 individuals born with UCLP and Class I, which suggested that some UCLP cleft cases may have a Class III craniofacial configuration due mostly to a shortened cranial base. 30,31 No difference in the cranial base length between the UCLP Class III group and the non-cleft Class III group was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…21 To study the Class III configuration of individuals born with cleft lip and palate more in detail, the Class III configuration in UCLP was compared to Class III individuals born without clefts and individuals born with UCLP with Class I malocclusion. If deficiency of facial growth only resulted from iatrogenic primary surgery repairs, [22][23][24][25] it was expected that the Class III pattern in individuals born with clefts would have a purely maxillary contribution with the other craniofacial characteristics showing normal values. These values should differ from those in individuals born without clefts or from a Class III configuration in an individual that had never been subjected to surgical repair.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrognathic maxilla in individuals born with oral clefts is due to intrinsic factors and not only due to early surgical treatment

Lacerda¹,

Vieira²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine if the skeletal form of individuals born with oral clefts was associated with maxillary position. Materials and Methods Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 90 individuals 8 to 12 years old born with or without cleft lip and palate paired by age and sex were used. Skull base length, cranial base angle, cranial deflection angle, and maxillary skeletal length and position were studied. Also, mandibular skeletal length and position, lower anterior facial height, and dental position were defined. Individuals were divided into three groups: 30 individuals born with cleft lip and palate with Class III malocclusion (UCLP Class III), 30 individuals born with cleft lip and palate with Class I malocclusion (UCLP Class I), and 30 individuals born without cleft lip and palate with Class III malocclusion (non-cleft Class III). Results When comparing the UCLP Class III group with the UCLP Class I group, there were differences in maxillary position (P < .001) and mandibular position (P = .004) found. No differences were found when comparing the UCLP Class III group with the non-cleft Class III group. Conclusions There are intrinsic factors that affect craniofacial morphology of individuals born with cleft lip and palate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrognathic maxilla in individuals born with oral clefts is due to intrinsic factors and not only due to early surgical treatment

Lacerda¹,

Vieira²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Factors as congenital dysmorphology of the midface, functional adaptation, iatrogenic effects of surgery, and bony structural variations among the different types of CLP may cause an important influence on midface growth, leading to maxillomandibular discrepancies (MMDs). Thus, midface growth may occur in a different manner, depending on the cleft type and severity (6)(7)(8) . This occurs mainly due to the scar fibrosis caused by the several surgical procedures to which individuals with CLP are submitted during childhood, which may affect the midface growth (9) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avanço cirúrgico de maxila e ressonância de fala: comparação entre os tipos de fissura

Medeiros-Santana

Araújo

Fukushiro

et al. 2020

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO Objetivo Investigar a influência do tipo de fissura sobre o aparecimento da hipernasalidade após o avanço cirúrgico da maxila (AM). Método A nasalidade foi determinada por meio da medida de nasalância (correlato acústico da nasalidade) utilizando-se a nasometria. Foi realizada a análise dos escores de nasalância de 17 indivíduos com fissura isolada de palato (FP), 118 com fissura de lábio e palato unilateral (FLPU) e 69 com fissura de lábio e palato bilateral (FLPB), de ambos os sexos, com idades entre 18 e 28 anos, submetidos ao AM. Apenas indivíduos com escores de nasalância indicativos de ressonância equilibrada previamente ao AM foram incluídos neste estudo. A nasometria foi realizada, em média, três dias antes e 15 meses após o AM. A proporção de pacientes que apresentaram escores de nasalância indicativos de hipernasalidade após o AM foi calculada por meio do teste ANOVA e a comparação entre os diferentes tipos de fissura foi realizada utilizando-se o teste Qui-quadrado (p < 0,05). Resultados Não foi observada diferença significante entre as proporções de indivíduos com hipernasalidade, de acordo com o tipo de fissura. Conclusão A nasometria mostrou que o aparecimento da hipernasalidade após o AM, em indivíduos com fissura de palato envolvendo ou não o lábio, ocorreu em proporções similares independentemente do tipo de fissura.

show abstract

“…16,17 Clefts can be categorized as cleft lip (CL), cleft palate (CP), unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), according to the affected region. 18 With a prevalence of approximately 30%, UCLP is the most commonly seen cleft type among all categories and generally has a tendency to present Class III malocclusion. 19 Ozturk and Cura 20 reported that in patients with UCLP, maxilla was more retrognathic and posteriorly inclined, which could be the result of either scar contracture and palatal muscle strain due to surgeries, developmental problems in maxilla or a combination of both.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the cranial base and sella turcica morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

Bavbek

Kaymaz

Türköz

2019

Acta Odontologica Turcica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the size and morphology of the sella turcica and cranial base in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), and to compare it with individuals showing Class III discrepancy due to maxillary deficiency (CL3) and with individuals having normal (CL1) craniofacial development.MATERIALS AND METHOD: This retrospective study was carried out on the lateral cephalogram tracings of UCLP (10 females, 4 males; 12.05±1.14 years), CL3 (10 females, 5 males; 11.73±0.89 years) and CL1 (10 females, 5 males; 13.11±1.11 years) patients. Linear and angular measurements related to sella turcica and cranial base were performed. Intergroup comparisons were either made with one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test or with Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni adjustment (p<0.05). Spearman correlation coefficient was used for correlations (p<0.01). RESULTS: The length of the maxilla (Co-A) was shorterin UCLP (p=0.035) and CL3 (p=0.001) than in CL1. Total cranial length (Ba-N) was greater in UCLP than in CL3 (p=0.012) and CL1 (p=0.016). Cranial base angle (N-S-Ar°) was less in CL3 than in UCLP (p=0.001) and CL1 (p=0.009). Ba-N (p=0.003) and anterior cranial length (S-N) (p=0.000) were positively correlated with Co-A. Posterior cranial length (S-Ba) was positively correlated with ramus height (Ar-Go) (p=0.001). The diameter of sella was bigger in CL1 than in CL3 (p=0.025). The prevalence of morphologic variations of sella turcica in UCLP was higher (71.4%) than in control groups. CONCLUSION:Although there was a Class III tendency in UCLP due to maxillary deficiency, cranial base flexure characteristic to CL3 anomalies was not seen in this group. The existence of UCLP or CL3 did not alter dimensions of sella turcica, but morphologic variations were more common in UCLP.

show abstract

Craniofacial cephalometric morphologies in different cleft types: a retrospective cross-sectional study of 212 patients

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Retrognathic maxilla in individuals born with oral clefts is due to intrinsic factors and not only due to early surgical treatment

Retrognathic maxilla in individuals born with oral clefts is due to intrinsic factors and not only due to early surgical treatment

Avanço cirúrgico de maxila e ressonância de fala: comparação entre os tipos de fissura

Evaluation of the cranial base and sella turcica morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About