Distribution, side involvement, phenotype and associated anomalies of Korean patients with craniofacial clefts from single university hospitalbased data obtained during 1998–2018

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the distribution, side involvement, phenotype, and associated anomalies of Korean patients with craniofacial clefts (CFC). Methods: The samples consisted of 38 CFC patients, who were treated at Seoul National University Dental Hospital during 1998-2018. The Tessier cleft type, sex, side involvement, phenotype, and associated anomalies were investigated using nonparametric statistical analysis. Results: The three most common types were #7 cleft, followed by #0 cleft and #14 cleft. There was no difference between the frequency of male and female. Patients with #0 cleft exhibited nasal deformity, bony defect, and missing teeth in the premaxilla, midline cleft lip, and eye problems. A patient with #3 cleft (unilateral type) exhibited bilateral cleft lip and alveolus. All patients with #4 cleft were the bilateral type, including a combination of #3 and #4 clefts, and had multiple missing teeth. A patient with #5 cleft (unilateral type) had a posterior openbite. In patients with #7 cleft, the unilateral type was more prevalent than the bilateral type (87.0% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.001). Sixteen patients showed hemifacial microsomia (HFM), Goldenhar syndrome, and unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). There was a significant match in the side involvement of #7 cleft and HFM (87.5%, p < 0.01). Patients with #14 cleft had plagiocephaly, UCLP, or hyperterorbitism. A patient with #30 cleft exhibited tongue tie and missing tooth. Conclusions: Due to the diverse associated craniofacial anomalies in patients with CFC, a multidisciplinary approach involving a well-experienced cooperative team is mandatory for these patients.

Presentation and Management of Atypical Orofacial Clefts: A Single-Institution Experience for 13 Year Period

“…It is notable that Tessier clefts 1,2,5,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 were not seen in the study population. This is similar to the study by Chug et al (2020) who reported that 1, 2,6,8,9,10,11,12 & 13 were rare: Mishra and Purwar (2009) however, discovered that Tessier cleft 3 and 4 were the rarest cleft in their study [while in this study, we found that Tessier clefts 3 and 4 each accounted for 8.9% of craniofacial clefts in our patients]…”

“…Chung et al (2020) noted that the commonest Tessier cleft found in their Korean patients was Tessier 7 [ n = 23, 60.5%]. Although this study shows a slightly higher prevalence of lateral cleft [ n = 14, 31.1%], this is comparable to the prevalence found in the study by Bello et al (2019); Chung et al (2020) and Fogh-Anderson (1965). The diverse discrepancies in which cleft is commoner in the different populations studied may be as a result of geographic or ethnic variations.…”

“…Fijalkowska and Antoszewski (2015) however, found that the majority of presentation of craniofacial cleft in their study was the oblique group of clefts [ n = 6, 54.5%] as compared to this study [ n = 10, 22.2%]. Chung et al (2020) noted that the commonest Tessier cleft found in their Korean patients was Tessier 7 [ n = 23, 60.5%]. Although this study shows a slightly higher prevalence of lateral cleft [ n = 14, 31.1%], this is comparable to the prevalence found in the study by Bello et al (2019); Chung et al (2020) and Fogh-Anderson (1965).…”

Đặc điểm lâm sàng bệnh nhân mắc dị tật bẩm sinh khe hở sọ mặt hiếm

“…Tuy nhiên không có sự khác biệt về khả năng mắc dị tật bẩm sinh khe hở sọ mặt hiếm trên hai giới nam và nữ, tất cả đều có p > 0,05. Nghiên cứu này phù hợp với Chung và cộng sự (2019) [6], nhưng có sự khác biệt so với Kalantar -Hormozi và cs (2017) [4] khi chỉ ra kết quả nữ giới bị ảnh hưởng nhiều hơn nam giới. Sự sai biệt này có thể tới do nghiên cứu trên chủng tộc khác nhau, ý thức khám xét về dị tật sọ mặt của phụ huynh cho trẻ nữ lớn hơn của nam giới.…”

“…Trong nghiên cứu của chúng tôi, dạng khe hở phổ biến nhất là khe hở số T7 (n = 17; 56.7%), khe hở phổ biến thứ 2 là khe hở số T0 (n = 8; 26,7%) nghiên cứu này phù hợp với nghiên cứu của Chung và cs (2019) [6], nhưng lại khác biệt so với nghiên cứu của Kalantar -Hormozi và cộng sự [4]; Rowland Agbara vs cộng sự [5], cả hai nghiên cứu đều có khe hở phổ biến nhất là khe hở số T0. Sự sai biệt này có thể là do chủng tộc nghiên cứu, cỡ mẫu, cũng như phổ bệnh nhân tới khám tại đơn vị y khoa.…”