Volumetric assessment of maxillary sinus in cleft lip and palate patients in comparison to normal subjects

Abstract

Background: Maxillary sinus is pyramidal cavity located in the body of maxilla; represent the largest and closest paranasal sinus to oral cavity. Maxillary sinus shape, size and volume affected by any developmental disturbance occur in midfacial area such as cleft lip and palate. The aim of this study is to evaluate maxillary sinus volume in cleft lip/palate patients and compare it to control normal subjects by using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Material and method: Thirty four Cone Beam Computed Tomography images (17 of cleft patients and 17 controls) were collected, and Maxillary sinus volume was measured in cleft patients (cleft side and non-cleft sidd), and control group (right and left side).Comparison between study groups and statistical analysis was done. Results: the mean of sinus volume in cleft side was 7.76±2.4 mm 3 , in non-cleft side was 9.03±2.2 mm 3 , and in control group(mean of right and left side) was 11.34±2.8 mm 3 .maxillary sinus volume of cleft side was smaller than non-cleft side with no statistical significant difference. But there was high significant difference when compared to control group P= 0.0009. Conclusion:cleft lip and palate affect the normal development of maxillary sinus in cleft side. knowledge about maxillary sinus anatomy and volume is important point for surgeon required in sinus surgery, implant placement and any treatment of craniofacial disease.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment of Maxillary Sinus Characteristics in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Of these, 5 were included in the review. Hence, 11 articles were ultimately included in the review 10,11,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] .…”

“…Six studies reported smaller MSV in patients with CLP as compared with those in the control group. 10,16,18,19,21,23 In contrast, 3 studies suggested that there was no significant difference in the MSV of patients with CLP compared with that of the controls 11,22,24 (Table 2).…”

“…Three studies observed a significantly low MSV of the cleft side as compared with the noncleft side, 11,21,24 whereas the other 3 found no difference 10,16,22 (Table 2).…”

“…17,22 The equipment used for CBCT imaging in the different studies included: NewTom 5G (QR, 15 × 15 cm); 10,11,22,23 the i-CAT 3D imaging system; 17,19,20,24 PlanmecaPro max 3D CBCT Mid (200 × 170 mm, 1 mm); 18 and the CS9300 unit (Carestream Health; 17 × 13.5 cm, 0.5 mm), 16 while one study did not mention the details. 21 The voxel sizes, exposures, and exposure times showed variations in the included studies; however, 2 studies did not mention these details. 17,21 The reliability of the interpretation of CBCT findings was assessed by inter-examiner 20,23 and intra-examiner reliability methods.…”

“…The analysis of ROB showed low risk in 10 studies 10,11,[16][17][18][19][20][22][23][24] and high ROB in one study 21 (Figure 2).…”