Cephalometric Soft Tissue Morphology of Adults With Unoperated Submucous Cleft Palate

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare craniofacial soft tissue characteristics between subjects with unrepaired submucous cleft palate (SMCP) and noncleft individuals. This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on 27 subjects with unrepaired SMCP (13 male and 14 female subjects; mean age, 21.77 ± 4.09 years) and 30 noncleft controls (14 male and 16 female subjects; mean age, 22.67 ± 4.28 years). The predictor variable was cleft deformity. The outcome variable was cephalometric soft tissue measurements. Other study variables were gender and age. Independent samples t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for intergroup comparison. P value was set at .05. Significant differences were observed in the facial profile angle, total facial profile angle, soft tissue A-N-B angle, nasal base prominence, upper lip length, lower lip protrusion, and the ratio of upper lip length to mentolabial height between subjects with unoperated SMCP and noncleft controls. The primary deformity of the cleft palate leads to unsatisfactory facial soft tissue morphology, especially in the middle facial region.

Correlating Jaw Bone Growth and Nasal Morphology Among Adult Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study

“…1 However, limited previous data suggested that adults with CL/P demonstrated smaller sagittal maxillary length and inharmonious jaw relationship with a flatter facial profile, retrusive nasal base, a less prominent nasal tip, and decreased upper lip protrusion. 7,8 According to these data, correlation existed between nasal morphology and sagittal and vertical jaw configuration in various subtypes of CL/P. The phenomena that S-N-A angle registered positive correlations with nasal base prominence, and upper facial height had positive correlations with nasal dorsum length and nasal bone length were found between the normal and patients with CL/P.…”

“…Some also reported that a short and protrusive maxilla tended to accompany a shorter and straighter nose 1 . However, limited previous data suggested that adults with CL/P demonstrated smaller sagittal maxillary length and inharmonious jaw relationship with a flatter facial profile, retrusive nasal base, a less prominent nasal tip, and decreased upper lip protrusion 7,8 …”

“…Flores-Mir et al 6 found that facial growth was in pace with overall skeletal maturity and the growth rate of the external nose was positively correlated with the growth rate of height. Previous studies also reported that adults with CL/P demonstrated smaller sagittal maxillary length and inharmonious jaw relationship with a flatter facial profile, retrusive nasal base, a less prominent nasal tip, and decreased upper lip protrusion 7,8 . The reasons for deformities in patients with CL/P were as follows: (1) abnormal intrinsic growth potential of the craniofacial region, (2) skewed growth secondary to primary abnormal nasolabial anatomy, and (3) abnormal growth caused by iatrogenic factors including surgery-related trauma and tissue tension 9,10 …”

“…Previous studies also reported that adults with CL/P demonstrated smaller sagittal maxillary length and inharmonious jaw relationship with a flatter facial profile, retrusive nasal base, a less prominent nasal tip, and decreased upper lip protrusion. 7,8 The reasons for deformities in patients with CL/P were as follows: (1) abnormal intrinsic growth potential of the craniofacial region, (2) skewed growth secondary to primary abnormal nasolabial anatomy, and (3) abnormal growth caused by iatrogenic factors including surgery-related trauma and tissue tension. 9,10 Few studies have been found concerning the correlation between nasal profile and craniofacial structures in patients with CL/P.…”