Cranial base morphology in cleft lip and palate: A cephalometric study from 7 to 18 years of age

Base of the skull morphology and Class III malocclusion in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

“…No significant difference was found in the base of the skull angle (Ba.S.N), particularly between control and cleft lip/palate group (P = 0.275). This is in agreement with previous studies 16 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 reporting that the malocclusion found in this group is much more the result of maxillary retrognathism caused by surgical trauma than the presence of a more flexed base of the skull, thereby determining the emergence of mandibular prognathism. However, significant differences were found between the control and the Class III malocclusion group, with a smaller angle in the latter group (125.6 o) .…”

“…No significant differences were found for S-N among groups; however, mean S-N was greater in the cleft lip/palate group in comparison to the other groups. This is in disagreement with others studies 15 , 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 reporting lower S-N in children with cleft lip and palate, thereby suggesting a relative difference in the craniofacial morphology of such individuals. Nevertheless, the majority of the aforementioned studies included individuals with different types and degrees of cleft lip and palate, which may explain the divergent findings.…”

Base of the skull morphology and Class III malocclusion in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

“…No significant difference was found in the base of the skull angle (Ba.S.N), particularly between control and cleft lip/palate group (P = 0.275). This is in agreement with previous studies 16 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 reporting that the malocclusion found in this group is much more the result of maxillary retrognathism caused by surgical trauma than the presence of a more flexed base of the skull, thereby determining the emergence of mandibular prognathism. However, significant differences were found between the control and the Class III malocclusion group, with a smaller angle in the latter group (125.6 o) .…”

“…No significant differences were found for S-N among groups; however, mean S-N was greater in the cleft lip/palate group in comparison to the other groups. This is in disagreement with others studies 15 , 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 reporting lower S-N in children with cleft lip and palate, thereby suggesting a relative difference in the craniofacial morphology of such individuals. Nevertheless, the majority of the aforementioned studies included individuals with different types and degrees of cleft lip and palate, which may explain the divergent findings.…”

Timing of Spheno-Occipital Synchondrosis Closure in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients in Iranian Population

“…Furthermore, the growth of the nasomaxillary complex, which determines the position of the maxilla, may be influenced by the cranial base structures. [23][24][25][26] Thus, the data of this study can be used to reach a standard golden age range for orthodontics treatment in patients with CLP, as well as noncleft patients.…”

Cranial Base Angle in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of 11 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Capelozza et al, 1993; Laatikainen et al, 1996; Da Silva Filho et al, 1998; Dogan et al, 2006; Shetye and Evans, 2006; Ebin et al, 2010; Tinano et al, 2015; Lin et al, 2016; Gopinath et al, 2017; Liu and Chen, 2018) had tested the primary outcome and the secondary outcomes, that is the CBA, anterior and PCB lengths. Four studies had not measured the PCB length (Hayashi et al, 1976; Abuhijleh et al, 2014; Jahanbin et al, 2015; Zheng et al, 2016) (Table 3).…”

“…The included studies were cross-sectional and published between 1976 and 2018. Twelve studies had included only patients with UCLP and 1 study (Da Silva Filho et al, 1998) had included only patients with BCLP, whereas 2 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Jahanbin et al, 2015) compared both patients with UCLP and BCLP. Most studies compared non-syndromic UCLP and patients without CLP, who had Class I malocclusion.…”

Base of the skull morphology and Class III malocclusion in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

“…No significant difference was found in the base of the skull angle (Ba.S.N), particularly between control and cleft lip/palate group (P = 0.275). This is in agreement with previous studies 16 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 reporting that the malocclusion found in this group is much more the result of maxillary retrognathism caused by surgical trauma than the presence of a more flexed base of the skull, thereby determining the emergence of mandibular prognathism. However, significant differences were found between the control and the Class III malocclusion group, with a smaller angle in the latter group (125.6 o) .…”

“…No significant differences were found for S-N among groups; however, mean S-N was greater in the cleft lip/palate group in comparison to the other groups. This is in disagreement with others studies 15 , 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 reporting lower S-N in children with cleft lip and palate, thereby suggesting a relative difference in the craniofacial morphology of such individuals. Nevertheless, the majority of the aforementioned studies included individuals with different types and degrees of cleft lip and palate, which may explain the divergent findings.…”

Timing of Spheno-Occipital Synchondrosis Closure in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients in Iranian Population

“…Furthermore, the growth of the nasomaxillary complex, which determines the position of the maxilla, may be influenced by the cranial base structures. [23][24][25][26] Thus, the data of this study can be used to reach a standard golden age range for orthodontics treatment in patients with CLP, as well as noncleft patients.…”

Cranial Base Angle in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of 11 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Capelozza et al, 1993; Laatikainen et al, 1996; Da Silva Filho et al, 1998; Dogan et al, 2006; Shetye and Evans, 2006; Ebin et al, 2010; Tinano et al, 2015; Lin et al, 2016; Gopinath et al, 2017; Liu and Chen, 2018) had tested the primary outcome and the secondary outcomes, that is the CBA, anterior and PCB lengths. Four studies had not measured the PCB length (Hayashi et al, 1976; Abuhijleh et al, 2014; Jahanbin et al, 2015; Zheng et al, 2016) (Table 3).…”

“…The included studies were cross-sectional and published between 1976 and 2018. Twelve studies had included only patients with UCLP and 1 study (Da Silva Filho et al, 1998) had included only patients with BCLP, whereas 2 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Jahanbin et al, 2015) compared both patients with UCLP and BCLP. Most studies compared non-syndromic UCLP and patients without CLP, who had Class I malocclusion.…”

Base of the skull morphology and Class III malocclusion in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

“…No significant difference was found in the base of the skull angle (Ba.S.N), particularly between control and cleft lip/palate group (P = 0.275). This is in agreement with previous studies 16 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 27 reporting that the malocclusion found in this group is much more the result of maxillary retrognathism caused by surgical trauma than the presence of a more flexed base of the skull, thereby determining the emergence of mandibular prognathism. However, significant differences were found between the control and the Class III malocclusion group, with a smaller angle in the latter group (125.6 o) .…”

“…No significant differences were found for S-N among groups; however, mean S-N was greater in the cleft lip/palate group in comparison to the other groups. This is in disagreement with others studies 15 , 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 reporting lower S-N in children with cleft lip and palate, thereby suggesting a relative difference in the craniofacial morphology of such individuals. Nevertheless, the majority of the aforementioned studies included individuals with different types and degrees of cleft lip and palate, which may explain the divergent findings.…”

Timing of Spheno-Occipital Synchondrosis Closure in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients in Iranian Population

“…Furthermore, the growth of the nasomaxillary complex, which determines the position of the maxilla, may be influenced by the cranial base structures. [23][24][25][26] Thus, the data of this study can be used to reach a standard golden age range for orthodontics treatment in patients with CLP, as well as noncleft patients.…”

Cranial Base Angle in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of 11 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Capelozza et al, 1993; Laatikainen et al, 1996; Da Silva Filho et al, 1998; Dogan et al, 2006; Shetye and Evans, 2006; Ebin et al, 2010; Tinano et al, 2015; Lin et al, 2016; Gopinath et al, 2017; Liu and Chen, 2018) had tested the primary outcome and the secondary outcomes, that is the CBA, anterior and PCB lengths. Four studies had not measured the PCB length (Hayashi et al, 1976; Abuhijleh et al, 2014; Jahanbin et al, 2015; Zheng et al, 2016) (Table 3).…”

“…The included studies were cross-sectional and published between 1976 and 2018. Twelve studies had included only patients with UCLP and 1 study (Da Silva Filho et al, 1998) had included only patients with BCLP, whereas 2 studies (Horswell and Gallup, 1992; Jahanbin et al, 2015) compared both patients with UCLP and BCLP. Most studies compared non-syndromic UCLP and patients without CLP, who had Class I malocclusion.…”