Differences in cephalometric reference values between five centres: relevance to the Eurocleft Study

A two-centre study on facial morphology in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate at nine years of age

“…Significantly retroclined upper incisors and premaxillary protrusion, as reported by HEIDBÜ CHEL et al 8 , were verified in the present larger sample from Nijmegen, the increased NAPg indicating a Class II skeletal pattern, confirming the findings of a later published study 21 for the same centre. In another study, facial profile differences between gn…”

“…Another factor to be considered, besides the centre's protocol, is the developmental differences between the two populations, and the individual genetic components. In the cephalometric study by TRENOUTH et al 21 , the data from 5 European cleft centres were compared, Nijmegen was one of them. In comparison with the other European centres, Nijmegen showed a pronounced Class II skeletal relationship.…”

A Cephalometric Evaluation of the Biobloc Technique Using Matched Normative Data

“…This was considered appropriate because different groups of randomly selected normative data show some significant differences in cephalometric parameters, presumably reflecting racial and genetic variation in the populations from which they were drawn [13,16].…”

“…Diese Kontrolldaten wurden als angemessen angesehen, da bei verschiedenen Gruppen, für die randomisiert ausgewählte, normative Daten erhoben wurden, einige signifikante Unterschiede bezüglich der kephalometrischen Parameter bestanden. Dies lässt sich möglicherweise auf die ethnische und genetische Variationsbreite der zum Vergleich herangezogenen Bevölkerung zurückführen [13,16]. differences between the sexes (Table 4).…”

Soft Tissue Changes in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: Anterior Maxillary Distraction versus Conventional Le-Fort I Osteotomy

“…The highest incidence rate was found in Native Americans with 3.74 per 1,000 live births followed by Japanese subjects with 3.36 per 1,000 live births [16]. Chung and Kau analysed the morphological and developmental basis for racial difference in cleft lip and palate which revealed that Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos had smaller dimensions than Caucasians and Hawaiians in size of the cranial base, facial height, palatal length and mandibular length [8,17]. Asians are at higher risk than whites or blacks [18,19].…”