Risk factors for teeth aplasia and hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate children

Korolenkova, M V; Старикова, Н В; Lv, Ageeva

doi:10.17116/stomat201695159-62

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…interval time between surgeries, study design and length of follow-up [6] . Moreover, little information is available on the potential effects that different surgical timings of hard palate repair, early or late, could have on dental development [14,15] . It is indeed well known that all types of surgical repair of oro-facial clefts are detrimental to maxillary growth and development of permanent teeth.…”

Section: Sixtymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This discrepancy may be partially explained by patient selection criteria but may also suggest a role of external factors in enhancing the risk of tooth anomalies in cleft patients. While the impact of surgical cleft repair protocols on craniofacial growth has been widely investigated [11][12][13] , few studies have focused [14,15] on their impact on tooth development. Primary cleft lip repair is usually performed at the age of 3-6 months.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of different surgical protocols on dental development in oro-facial cleft children

Guagnano¹,

Romano²,

Pepe³

et al. 2020

Plast Aesthet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To determine the association between dental anomalies and type of facial cleft, gender, ethnicity and timing of hard palate repair surgery. Methods: This observational study comprised a total of 85 non-syndromic cleft children (mean age 9.7 ± 3.2 years) of different ethnicity (68 Caucasians, 7 Asians, 4 Africans, 5 Hispanics and 1 Indian). Sixty-four patients were affected by lip palate cleft, 11 by lip alveolus cleft and 10 by palate cleft. Sixty-one children underwent delayed palate repair at 4.3 years of age, while 21 underwent early palate periosteoplasty at 7.2 months of age. Patients were examined clinically and radiologically to assess dental anomalies. Dental cavities were registered using dmft/DMFT indexes in primary and permanent dentition, while enamel defects were evaluated only in permanent teeth using Aine index. Results: Tooth rotation and agenesis were the most common tooth anomalies affecting 59% and 42.2% of cleft patients, respectively. While a late closure of the cleft palate was associated with a higher number of rotations (P = 0.03), an early surgical correction was associated to a higher frequency of tooth agenesis (P = 0.02), number of carious lesions in primary dentition (P = 0.002) and more severe enamel defects in permanent teeth (P < 0.01). A late palate repair increased 3.5 times the likelihood of having at least one rotated tooth (P = 0.034), while decreased the odds of having agenesis by 70% (P = 0.029) compared to an early surgical repair. Conclusion: Early surgical approaches seem to have more detrimental effects on dental development in both primary and permanent dentition than late surgical protocols. Dental abnormalities in cleft patients have complex etiology combining genetic and external factors and their prevalence can also depend on timing of hard palate surgery.

show abstract

Section: Sixtymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of different surgical protocols on dental development in oro-facial cleft children

Guagnano¹,

Romano²,

Pepe³

et al. 2020

Plast Aesthet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with clefts have more opportunity to develop defects in enamel due to, among other possible etiologies, trauma associated with surgical intervention. In a study of 247 CLP subjects a higher incidence of incisor hypoplasia was associated with surgical trauma by periosteoplasty, but also excessive tissue traction and scar tissue due to absence of early orthopedic treatment (Korolenkova, Starikova et al 2016).…”

Section: Enamel Hypoplasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Assessment of prognostic factors affecting the quality of life of children with congenital cleft lip and palate

Gvozdeva¹,

Danilova

Alexandrova

2020

Stomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk factors for teeth aplasia and hypoplasia in cleft lip and palate children

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Impact of different surgical protocols on dental development in oro-facial cleft children

Impact of different surgical protocols on dental development in oro-facial cleft children

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

Assessment of prognostic factors affecting the quality of life of children with congenital cleft lip and palate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About