Three-dimensional Evaluation of Mandibular Volume in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate During the Deciduous Dentition Period

Abstract

Objectives To examine the relationship between mandibular volume and craniofacial morphology in patients with cleft lip and palate using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to compare these findings with control (noncleft) patients undergoing CBCT for other purposes during the deciduous dentition period. Materials and Methods Eighty-four patients were categorized into the unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA) group (n = 25; mean age, 4.60 ± 0.40 years), unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) group (n = 23; mean age, 4.52 ± 0.39 years), bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) group (n = 22; mean age, 4.54 ± 0.37 years), and control group without cleft (n = 14; mean age, 5.19 ± 0.52 years). Mandibular volume and craniofacial cephalometric measurements were obtained using CBCT. All measurements were assessed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparison tests. Results ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant differences in mandibular volume among the groups. SNA° and ANB° were significantly larger in the UCLA and BCLP groups than in the control group. SN-MP° was smallest in the UCLA group. Co-A in the UCLP group was shorter than in the UCLA and BCLP groups. Go-Gn was shortest in the UCLP and BCLP groups compared with the control group. Conclusions Three-dimensional evaluation of craniofacial morphology using CBCT can provide valuable information on malocclusion and other dentoskeletal problems among patients with CLP.

Three-Dimensional Assessment of Craniofacial Features in Patients With Down Syndrome During the Mixed Dentition Period: A Case-Control Study

“…The participants were classified according to their anteroposterior skeletal patterns: Class I, À1 ANB < 4 ; Class II, ANB ! 4 ; and Class III, ANB < À1 (Katayama et al, 2014;Nakawaki et al, 2016;Shrestha et al, 2019). Information about body height and weight was obtained from medical interviews.…”

“…For evaluation of skeletal volumes and craniofacial features, measurements (volumetric, angular, and linear) were performed in accordance with methods used in previous studies (Deguchi et al, 2010;Lagravère et al, 2015;Shrestha et al, 2019). Acquired CBCT images of all participants were analyzed using dental imaging software (Invivo5 Imaging Software; Anatomage).…”

“…The maxillary volume contained no tooth crowns; the superior reference line to the maxillary volume was the inferior side of the palatal plane, defined as the horizontal plane drawn from the anterior nasal spine to the posterior nasal spine (Deguchi et al, 2010; Figure 1A). The mandibular volume contained no tooth crowns, but included the condyles (Deguchi et al, 2010;Shrestha et al, 2019; Figure 1B). The outer borders of cortical bone and tooth crown in the maxilla and mandible were drawn freehand; tooth crowns were carefully removed from maxillary and mandibular bony structures.…”

“…Several studies have demonstrated quantifications of maxillary and/or mandibular volumes in normal individuals with malocclusion classified according to various skeletal patterns, as well as in individuals with cleft lip and palate (Nair et al, 2009;Deguchi et al, 2010;Jiang et al, 2015;Shrestha et al, 2019). To consider volumetric aspects in craniofacial analysis, it is important to adequately understand craniofacial morphology in patients with DS; this enables prediction of craniofacial growth and establishment of orthopedic treatment during stages of growth, such as the mixed dentition period.…”

Frontal and Axial Evaluation of Craniofacial Morphology in Repaired Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Utilizing Cone Beam Computed Tomography; An Observational Study

“…Hence, cognizance of the pre-operative anatomy of the cleft and neighboring regions is imperative for quintessential treatment planning [2]. Moreover, for proper therapeutic decision-making, it is exigent to have proficiency of the effect of CL ± p on maxillary and mandibular growth [3]. Almost 3/4 of CL ± p patients, have a cleft alveolus in addition, which may lead to anatomic and dental challenges, including impacted teeth, supernumerary teeth, crowding, atendency toward a Class III malocclusion, and crossbites, which often necessitate orthodontic intervention [4,5].…”