Maxillary growth of adult patients with unoperated cleft: answers to the debates

Diah, Enrina; Lo, Lun Jou; Huang, Chiung Shing; Sudjatmiko, Gentur; Susanto, Imam; Chen, Yu Ray

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.10.004

Cited by 85 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cleft size was more strongly correlated with the cleft area (r = 0.93, P < 0.001) than with the palatal area (r = À0.35, P = 0.03), so we can postulate that the cleft size primarily reflects tissue displacement, mainly through tongue force, rather than tissue deficiency. Previous studies have shown that tissue deficiency in patients with UCLP is mild in the horizontal dimension 3,18 , and least occurs in the posterior maxilla 3 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth

Liao

Prasad

Chiu

et al. 2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth

Liao

Prasad

Chiu

et al. 2010

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Patients with isolated cleft palate have always been considered to have better facial growth, but the fact is not like this (2,18). Patients with unoperated ICP in this study lead a decreased maxilla length and fairly normal maxilla position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The reasons affected facial morphology including three main factors: intrinsic developmental deficiencies, functional distortions affecting the position and growth, and iatrogenic factors (1)(2). †These authors contributed equally to this work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Craniofacial Morphology in Adult Patients with Unoperated Isolated Cleft Palate

Xue

Ahmatjian

et al. 2013

Bone Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSome investigations indicated that facial morphology in infants, children, adolescents, and adults with isolated cleft palate (ICP) were all different compared with nonclefts (3-12). Facial growth deficiency goes worse with age (6, 12), but facial morphology is still acceptableThe reasons affected facial morphology including three main factors: intrinsic developmental deficiencies, functional distortions affecting the position and growth, and iatrogenic factors (1-2). †These authors contributed equally to this work. because of modulation of mandible position (6). Iatrogenic factors are not the main reason resulted in maxillary retrusion, but intrinsic deficiencies are (3, 13). However, another researches showed that the facial morphology is similarly normal when compared with nonclefts (14-20). Different findings may result from the heterogeneity of the samples (18, 21), small sample size (22-23), the various range of age (18), different cleft types of samples (15,(24)(25) and factors related to the control group. Craniofacial morphology is of genetic and racial characteristic. In previous studies about unoperated isolated cleft palate, both patients with soft cleft palate only and patients with hard and soft cleft palate were included. The two types of cleft are so different: vomer is well connected with palate plane in soft cleft palate, but vomer is not in hard and soft cleft palate.

show abstract

“…While several studies have dealt with the complex mechanisms underlying palatal shelf fusion, there is relatively little information regarding differentiation of the palatal mesenchyme after fusion. It has been reported that CP in humans results in abnormal function and growth of the maxilla [Dahl et al, 1982;Yoshida et al, 1992;McCance et al, 1993;Hermann et al, 2002;Diah et al, 2007]. Therefore, we wished to test the hypothesis that failure of palatal shelf fusion might affect subsequent osteoblast differentiation in the palatal mesenchyme.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unclear whether bone in non-fused palates develops like in normal palates, and whether bone differentiation may be differently affected in CP caused by different genetic/environmental backgrounds. Besides clinical reports [Hermann et al, 2002;Diah et al, 2007], there are studies in mice to suggest potential links between palatal shelf fusion and palatal bone development. For instance, transforming growth factor-␤ 3 (Tgf ␤ 3), which is essential for palatal shelf fusion [Brunet et al, 1995;Kaartinen et al, 1995;Proetzel et al, 1995;Taya et al, 1999], is also involved in osteoblast differentiation [ten Dijke et al, 1990;Opperman et al, 1997].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed Osteoprogenitor Differentiation in Cleft-Palate Models

Pungchanchaikul¹,

Bloch‐Zupan²,

Ferretti³

2010

Cells Tissues Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failure of palatal shelf fusion results in cleft palate (CP) and may lead to malformation of palatal bones and undergrowth of the maxilla. It is not known whether defects in bone formation may contribute to this phenotype. We tested the hypothesis that impaired fusion of developing palatal shelves affects palatal bone development using palate organotypic cultures. Using two different approaches, we show that induction of cleft results in increased expression of pre-osteoblast and early osteoblast markers, Twist1, Snai1 and Runx2, and decreased expression of more mature markers of bone differentiation, collagen-1 and osteopontin, indicating delayed osteoblast differentiation in CPs. This, together with the increase in immature osteoblasts and proliferation observed in non-fused palatal shelves, suggests that palatal osteoblast differentiation is at least partly modulated by shelf fusion. Delayed osteoblast differentiation may therefore contribute to defects in gross morphology and function of the maxilla in CP patients.

show abstract

Maxillary growth of adult patients with unoperated cleft: answers to the debates

Cited by 85 publications

References 22 publications

Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth

Cleft size at the time of palate repair in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate as an indicator of maxillary growth

The Craniofacial Morphology in Adult Patients with Unoperated Isolated Cleft Palate

Delayed Osteoprogenitor Differentiation in Cleft-Palate Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About