Studies on the Craniofacial Morphology of Adult Cleft Patients Using Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA)

Krey, Karl-Friedrich; Dannhauer, Karl-Heinz; Hemprich, Alexander; Reich, Sven

doi:10.1007/s00056-009-9920-3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Depending on the location, extent and laterality, orofacial clefts are classified into unilateral cleft lip, bilateral cleft lip, unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), and isolated cleft palate (CP). The prevalence of these cleft types varies by sex [ 8 , 9 ] and research indicates that specific cleft types are associated with characteristic craniofacial growth patterns and morphological changes [ 10 – 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial morphological variability in orthodontic patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts: an approach using geometric morphometrics

Schraad,

Schwahn,

Krey

et al. 2024

Clin Oral Invest

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Orofacial clefts are complex congenital anomalies that call for comprehensive treatment based on a thorough assessment of the anatomy. This study aims to examine the effect of cleft type on craniofacial morphology using geometric morphometrics. Materials and methods We evaluated lateral cephalograms of 75 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate, 63 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, and 76 patients with isolated cleft palate. Generalized Procrustes analysis was performed on 16 hard tissue landmark coordinates. Shape variability was studied with principal component analysis. In a risk model approach, the first nine principal components (PC) were used to examine the effect of cleft type. Results We found statistically significant differences in the mean shape between cleft types. The difference is greatest between bilateral cleft lip and palate and isolated cleft palate (distance of means 0.026, P = 0.0011). Differences between cleft types are most pronounced for PC4 and PC5 (P = 0.0001), which together account for 10% of the total shape variation. PC4 and PC5 show shape differences in the ratio of the upper to the lower face, the posterior mandibular height, and the mandibular angle. Conclusions Cleft type has a statistically significant but weak effect on craniofacial morphological variability in patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts, mainly in the vertical dimension. Clinical relevance Understanding the effects of clefts on craniofacial morphology is essential to providing patients with treatment tailored to their specific needs. This study contributes to the literature particularly due to our risk model approach in lieu of a prediction model.

show abstract