Patterns of tooth agenesis in patients with orofacial clefts

Hermus, Ruurd R.; Wijk, Arjen J. van; Tan, Stephan P. K.; Kramer, Gem J. C.; Ongkosuwito, Edwin M.

doi:10.1111/eos.12054

Cited by 11 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A trend for more hypoplasia was also found for the CL only group (p=0.001). This finding is consistent with work by Hermus et al that found the rate of agenesis to be positively correlated with cleft severity, whereby the percent of agenesis was 13.5% in CL, 33.8% in CLA, and 52.4% in CLP (Hermus, van Wijk et al 2013). Another study found that dental anomalies are collectively more prevalent in the CLP group compared to other cleft types and controls (Howe, Cooper et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft affected subjects and their family members

Crary¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: A wide range of dental anomalies are found in populations affected with orofacial clefts. However, an underwhelming body of evidence is available regarding the prevalence of dental anomalies in their unaffected relatives. This multi-center study aims to quantify the difference in prevalence of dental anomalies between subjects with non-syndromic clefts, their unaffected siblings and parents, and controls. Methods: A total of 1,025 subjects were rated, including: 110 subjects with overt orofacial clefting, 316 unaffected relatives, 599 controls. Intraoral photographs were utilized to rate dental anomalies. Case-control differences were evaluated via chi squared statistics and t-tests. Results: Compared with matched controls, the case proband group had more subjects with agenesis, displacements and mamelons, yet differences in prevalence for these anomalies varied by dentition and arch. Analyses by cleft type revealed that agenesis in the maxillary arch was significantly more prevalent in the CLP group compared to other cleft types or controls. After correction for multiple testing, dental anomalies in unaffected parents and siblings were not significantly different from matched controls except for incisal fissures that were more prevalent in controls than unaffected parents. However, several trends were detected. Discussion: Generally our findings are consistent with previous work that found an elevated rate of dental anomalies in the cleft-affected population. However, based on our study a claim cannot be made that unaffected family members are at significantly higher risk for dental anomalies, suggesting the higher rate of anomalies in cleft-affected subjects is not entirely due to genetics. Conclusions: These findings suggest that families with history of clefting do not carry a genetic risk for dental anomalies greater than the general population. Higher rates of dental anomalies in the case probands is most likely due to the physical cleft and corrective surgical interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…A recent study found the rate of dental agenesis to be 13.5% in CL, 33.8% in CLA, and 52.4% in CLP. The average rates of dental agenesis by dental arch in this population were found to be 35.1% in the maxilla and 11.5% in the mandible (Hermus, van Wijk et al 2013).…”

Section: Dental Agenesismentioning

confidence: 69%

Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft affected subjects and their family members

Crary¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, Shapira et al found a cleft side predominance for missing lateral incisors and second premolars in the maxillary and mandibular arch [ 42 ]. However, there is a positive correlation between hypodontia and severity of the cleft, with an increasing frequency of missing teeth as the severity of the cleft increases, resulting in more missing teeth in UCLP and BCLP patients with more teeth missing both inside and outside the cleft area [ 1 , 2 , 33 , 36 , 56 , 60 , 85 , 99 – 101 ]. For example, in UCLP patients the second upper premolar was missing in 11.8–52.6% [ 2 , 33 , 60 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 95 , 97 ], and in BCLP patients values of 21.6–68.4% [ 2 , 60 , 97 , 102 ] have been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographic Study of the Prevalence and Distribution of Hypodontia Associated with Unilateral and Bilateral Clef Lip and Palate in a Hungarian Population

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCleft defects are one of the most frequent birth-deformities of the orofacial region and they are commonly associated with anomalies of the tooth structure, size, shape, formation, eruption, and tooth number. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence, distribution, and potential association of combined hypodontia in cleft-affected patients with regard to all types of teeth in both jaws in the permanent dentition.Material/MethodsThis retrospective radiographic analysis included patients with various types of clefts treated orthodontically in the Department of Orofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics at Heim Pàl Children’s Hospital, Budapest. There were 150 patients (84 males, 66 females) with non-syndromic unilateral (UCLP; n=120 patients) or bilateral (BCLP; n=30 patients) cleft formation (lip, alveolus and palate) who met the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test (significance level p<0.05).ResultsHypodontia was significantly more frequent in patients with cleft-sided lateral incisor (104 patients, 69%), with a total of 235 missing teeth, followed by the second premolars of the upper and lower jaw. A significant correlation of congenital missing teeth was observed in left-sided clefts between the upper and lower second premolar in the cleft area.ConclusionsHypodontia inside and outside the cleft area was frequently observed. This should affect the therapy plans, especially if the cleft-sided premolar is also absent. Further comprehensive research including numerous random samples is necessary for better estimating other possible associations.

show abstract

“…Comparing these findings to the general population, the control probands have similar frequencies of agenesis to that in the general population (0.6 -5.2%) but the case probands have a much higher incidence of agenesis than the general population (Bailit, 1975;Polder et al, 2004;Ranta et al, 1983). Hermus et al, 2013;Jordan et al, 1966;Ranta et al, 1983;Schroeder & Green, 1975). Previous studies have only looked at permanent teeth and no reports were found specifically for agenesis of primary teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these missing teeth the maxillary lateral incisor was the most common followed by the maxillary and mandibular second premolar respectively. They also examined the relationship of the extent of the cleft and agenesis and found that the prevalence of tooth agenesis was significantly associated with an increase in the cleft extent ranging from CL at 13.5% to CLP at 52.4% (Hermus, van Wijk, Tan, Kramer, & Ongkosuwito, 2013).…”

Section: Hypodontiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the dental phenotype of non syndromic orofacial clefting

Howe¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns of tooth agenesis in patients with orofacial clefts

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft affected subjects and their family members

Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft affected subjects and their family members

Radiographic Study of the Prevalence and Distribution of Hypodontia Associated with Unilateral and Bilateral Clef Lip and Palate in a Hungarian Population

Expanding the dental phenotype of non syndromic orofacial clefting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About