Dental development of children and adolescents with cleft lip and palate

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the dental development of Brazilian children and adolescents with cleft lip and palate. Methods: The sample consisted of 107 panoramic radiographs of children and adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (cleft group) and 107 panoramic radiographs of children and adolescents without cleft lip and/or palate (control group), with chronological ages ranging from 6 to 15 years, matched in gender and chronological age within 60 days. Radiographs were digitized and masked and dental age was assessed using the method described by Demirjian et al. (1973). Three trained examiners conducted the assessments. Each examiner evaluated the radiographs three times. Data were statistically analyzed using non-parametric tests and univariate linear regression (p<0.05). Results: The dental age was overestimated in relation to the chronological age in both groups (p<0.0001). Compared to the control group, there was a delay in the dental age in the cleft group of 0.17 years (2.1 months). However, no statistically significant difference in the dental age between the cleft and the control group was found even when considering the different cleft types (p=0.152). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in the dental age between the cleft and the control groups. The evaluation of dental development in individuals with cleft lip and palate should be approached in the same way as in individuals without clefts, with a focus on the individualization of diagnosis and treatment planning.

Dental Age Estimation According to European Formula and Willems Method: Comparison Between Children With and Without Cleft Lip and Palate

“…Most of the studies on dental development in patients with CL/P predominantly applied DM. The results varied, showing a deviation of dental from chronological age and mostly delay in tooth development in children with and without clefts (Ranta, 1986; Eerens et al, 2001; Huyskens et al, 2006; Tan et al, 2012; Bindayel et al, 2014; Topolski et al, 2014; Van Dyck et al, 2019). The most recent systematic review reported the delay in dental development of patients with CL/P from 0.20 to 0.90 years, with a mean delay of 0.56 years for all types of clefts (Van Dyck et al, 2019).…”

Analysis of permanent second molar development in children born with cleft lip and palate

“….00 (5.00; 7.00) p (1) < 0.001* Lower 5.00 (4.00; 6.00) 6.00 (5.00; 7.00) p (1) < 0.001* P-value p (2) =0.008* p (2) =0.005* Nolla Upper 7.00 (6.00;8.00) 8.00 (7.00; 9.00) p (1) < 0.001* Lower 7.00 (6.00;8.00) 8.00 (7.00; 9.00) p (1) < 0.001* P-value p (2) =0.262 p (2) =0.052 Nolla's methods 13,14 were chosen in our study for their broad applicability worldwide. 12,15,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]26 While children with CLP are known to have normal genetic potential for growth, 27,28 some studies have demonstrated that they may present a delay in dental maturation. 19,20,24 The development of permanent dentition takes longer in children with CLP than otherwise and may be increased depending on the severity of the cleft.…”

“…Demirjian's methods. [14][15][16] D e m i r j i a n 's m e t h o d 14 Some studies have evaluated the dental age of individuals with CLP, 12,[18][19][20][21][22][23] but these studies do not focus on differences in side despite cleft lip and palate affecting the left lip two out of three instances.…”

“…10,11 Orthodontic interventions are required for the rehabilitation of individuals with CLP. 12 Nevertheless, very early orthodontic interventions should be avoided due to poor stability, which makes the rehabilitation process even more exhaustive for patients and their families. 10 Several currently available methods can be used to determine the patient's age or maturity of the dentition, most frequently Nolla's 13 (1960)…”

Radiographic analysis of dental maturation in children with amelogenesis imperfecta: A case‐control study

“…The available scientific literature suggests that human teeth resist biological alterations 1 . More specifically, case‐control studies revealed lack of statistically significant differences between controlled subjects and paired groups of subjects with HIV, 21 diabetes, 22 and cleft lip and palate 23 . Amelogenesis imperfecta (AI), on the other hand, is a rare genomic condition that manifests and impacts on tooth morphology and enamel structure 24 .…”