Examination of Craniofacial Morphology In Children with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Abstract

Craniofacial morphology of children with and without clefts has been reported to differ because of a combination of factors including, morphogenetic pattern, adaptive changes, and lip and palate management. The purpose of this study was to make a cephalometric evaluation of possible differences in craniofacial morphology of Turkish children with and without unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Twenty UCLP children (7 girls, 13 boys) with a mean age of 10.75 years (SD = 2.58 years) were compared with a control group of children without UCLP, who were matched for age (mean = 10.64 years, SD = 2.58 years) and sex. No patient had received orthodontic treatment. Linear and angular variables were measured from tracings of lateral cephalometric radiographs and the resulting data were evaluated statistically. Compared with children in the control group, the children in the cleft palate group demonstrated a greater flattening of the cranial base, a more retrognathic and posteriorly inclined maxilla with decreased length, a larger mandibular plane and gonial angle, larger anterior facial height, and decreased posterior and upper-posterior facial heights.

Three-dimensional craniofacial morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate

“…Because of this rotation, anteroinferior face height was significantly greater. The gonial angle was significantly larger in the UCCLP group, which supports the findings of earlier investigations (2,23). We hypothesize that the shorter mandible is caused by the shorter cranial base and mandibular adaptation to underdeveloped maxilla.…”

“…Typical manifestations of CLP include a more retrognathic and posteriorly inclined maxilla (with decreased length and midfacial deficiency related to the retruded maxilla), greater flattening of the cranial base, a larger mandibular plane and gonial angle, larger anterior facial height, and decreased posterior facial height (2). On the horizontal plane, maxillary bone defects and distortions are common (3)(4)(5), and patients show distinct facial asymmetry, even after corrective surgery (6).…”

“…Previous studies have mostly evaluated sagittal and vertical relationships in craniofacial morphology, espe- (2,8,9). Computed tomography was used to evaluate facial asymmetry and sagittal and vertical facial morphology; however, these studies were uncontrolled and restricted to a small number of CLP patients (7,10,11).…”

Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] In addition, cleft patients are known to have an increased vertical growth pattern compared to that of noncleft patients 1,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and to maintain their initial vertical pattern during growth. 14 Facemask therapy for maxillary protraction has been regarded as an effective tool for producing orthopedic change in cleft patients.…”

Evaluation of Midface Deficiency in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Adolescent Patients Treated with Early Maxillary Orthopedic Before Primary Surgery

“…5 Dudak ve damak yarığının tipik görüntüsünde, daha retrognatik ve posteriora doğru eğimli maksilla (retrüze maksillaya bağlı azalmış anteroposterior uzunluk ve orta yüz yetersizliği), kafa kaidesinde düzleşme, artmış anterior yüz yüksekliği ve azalmış posterior yüz yüksekliği vardır. 6 Maksilladan farklı olarak, mandibulanın büyüme yönü ve morfolojisi yarığın kendisinden kaynaklanmaktadır ve cerrahi prosedürden etkilenmemektedir. 7,8 Dudak ve damak yarıklı bireyler, mandibulaları daha kısa ramus ve corpusa ve de daha geniş gonial açıya sahiptirler.…”