Next Article in Journal
Short-Term Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema Following a Therapy Switch to Faricimab
Previous Article in Journal
Insights into Occlusal Analysis: Articulating Paper versus Digital Devices
Previous Article in Special Issue
Looking at the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents with Cleft Lip and/or Palate through Neuroticism and Emotional Regulation Strategies: A Case-Controlled Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/jcm13154507
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Polish Adolescents with Cleft Palate Only

by
Alicja Zawiślak
1,2,
Barbara Wędrychowska-Szulc
3,
Katarzyna Grocholewicz
2 and
Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska
2,*
1
Department of Maxillofacial Orthopaedics and Orthodontics, Institute of Mother and Child, ul. Kasprzaka 17a, 01-211 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, Pomeranian Medical University, al. Powstańców Wlkp. 72, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
3
Private Praxis Vita-Med 2, Ledochowskiego 16/U3A, 71-004 Szczecin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(15), 4507; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154507
Submission received: 5 July 2024 / Revised: 22 July 2024 / Accepted: 29 July 2024 / Published: 1 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cleft Lip and Palate Patient: New Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Cephalometric studies indicate that craniofacial morphology in patients with cleft palate only (CPO) differs from other forms of orofacial clefts and healthy patients. Planning orthodontic treatment for patients with different craniofacial deformities requires knowledge on the craniofacial complex. The aim of the present study was to describe the cephalometric craniofacial morphology in adolescents with cleft palate only compared to generally healthy orthodontic patients. Methods: The study comprised 100 lateral cephalograms (taken in the years 2003–2020) of Polish patients with cleft palate only aged from 11.1 to 14.2 (mean age 12.43 y) and a matched control group of 100 children without orofacial clefts aged 12–14 (mean age 12.25). All digital images were analyzed in specialized cephalometric software. Results: Statistically significantly lower values of both SNA (p < 0.001) and ANB (p < 0.001) were found in the study group versus the control group. Mandibular line to cranial base angle (ML-NSL) as well as maxillary base to cranial base (NL-NSL) were significantly higher in the CPO group. Both the maxilla and mandible were rotated distally in CPO. Moreover, the intermaxillary vertical angle (ML-NL) was reduced in CPO. Mandibular angle in CPO was significantly higher (p = 0.005), reflecting posterior mandibular rotation. Conclusions: In adolescents with CPO, maxillary deficiency is found, without a severe sagittal jaw discrepancy, with a slight compensatory lingual inclination of the lower incisors. Mandibular deficiency in CPO is concurrent with posterior rotation and an increased mandibular angle.

1. Introduction

Orofacial cleft (OFC) is the second most common birth defect (after phimosis), and it is the most frequent malformation within the craniofacial region. The incidence rate is approximately 1 in 700 live births, although this varies among different ethnic groups. The development of face and palate is a complex process involving the growth and fusion of the primary and secondary palatal shelves. Disruptions in this intricate process can lead to the formation of clefts. Various types of clefts can occur, including cleft lip (CL), cleft palate only (CPO), and cleft lip and palate (CL/P). The severity of the cleft depends on the extent of the structures involved [1,2,3].
The size and location of the cleft significantly impact the function of the orofacial complex, leading to issues with hearing, breathing, speech, and feeding in affected patients. That is why treatment of OFCs is multidisciplinary, requiring the expertise of various specialists, including plastic surgeons, orthodontists, otolaryngologists, speech therapists, audiologists, and pediatricians. This comprehensive approach ensures that all aspects of the condition are addressed, from surgical repair to long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes, as well as support for overall well-being [4].
The etiology of cleft lip and palate is complex, involving both genetic and environmental factors. Genetic predisposition plays a significant role, with environmental influences such as maternal smoking, infectious diseases during pregnancy, poor nutrition, and certain medications acting as modifying factors. Notably, the genetic component of CPO is more substantial than in other types of clefts, highlighting the unique nature of this malformation [2,5,6].
As cleft palate is a phenotypically diverse inborn malformation, its classification is difficult. No uniform classification of clefts has been widely accepted allowing use of universal terminology describing cleft of the palate only. Exploration of the evolution of ideas regarding cleft palate classification includes the schemes described by numerous researchers, including: Fogh-Andersen (1947) (isolated cleft palate), Veau (1931) (cleft of the soft palate, cleft of the soft and hard palate up to the incisive foramen), Womersley and Stone (1987) (cleft palate alone), Kernahan and Stark (1958) (posterior to the incisive foramen), ACPA (Berlin, 1971) (cleft of the hard palate (uranoschisis)), Broadbent (1969) (cleft of the soft palate (staphyloschisis or veloschisis), cleft of the soft palate (uranostaphyloschisis), (cleft of the posterior (secondary) palate), Millard (2017) (cleft palate, cleft palate only), Carroll and Mossey (2012) (HSH (hard, soft) or S (soft)), and Kernahan (1971) (striped Y-diagram) [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].
The authors of the present study consequently use the term “cleft palate only” (CPO). In various studies, the term “cleft palate” is used for orofacial clefts (Madachi et al., 2017) [16], whereas the term “isolated cleft palate” is both used for CPO and for various non-syndromic clefts [17,18,19,20].
According to previous cephalometric studies, significant differences exist referring to craniofacial morphology in CPO compared to UCLP, BCLP (Diah et al., 2007, Azouz et al., 2020). SNA measurements have revealed notable differences between groups, with the BCLP group exhibiting higher values and the CP group showing lower values in comparison to healthy patients [20,21]. Planning orthodontic treatment and prognosing the eventual need for orthognathic surgery in groups of patients with different craniofacial deformities require knowledge on the characteristics of craniofacial morphology [3].
However, no studies could be found in the literature referring to craniofacial cephalometric morphology in Polish adolescents with CPO.
Adolescence is a time particularly relevant to orthodontic treatment due to unique challenges associated with altered dental arch relationships and the potential for both dentoalveolar compensation in early permanent dentition or preparing for future orthognathic surgery, when orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances ais performed. Thus, identifying specific orthodontic problems is essential for improving proper strategies in this critical period for orthodontic evaluation and intervention. As a working hypothesis, we assumed that craniofacial morphology in CPO differs from that of healthy patients, referring to shorter maxillary length (SNA value), and compensatory incisor protrusion.
The aim of the present study was to compare cephalometric craniofacial morphology (specifically: SNA, SNB, ANB, SNPg, NSBa, GntgoAr, NL-NSL, ML-NSL, ML-NL, H, 1+:1−, 1+:NA, 1−:NB, Nasolabial angle, Pg:NB, Wits, Index) in adolescents with CPO to that of generally healthy young orthodontic patients.

2. Materials and Methods

The retrospective study comprised 100 lateral cephalograms (taken in the years 2003–2020) of Polish adolescents with CPO versus a control group (n = 100) recruited from consecutive patients referred for orthodontic treatment. The sample size was verified for SNA angle using an online calculator (select-statistics.co.uk), assuming a 95% confidence level and 80% power to detect a difference of 3 degrees, yielding a sample of 16 participants per group sufficient for comparison to be made.
The inclusion criteria for the study were as follows: patients aged 11–15 years, Polish origin, clear diagnosis of CPO (excluding Pierre-Robin sequence), sufficient quality of the cephalogram to allow identification of selected cephalometric landmarks, and absence of other significant congenital anomalies to exclude the influence of other anomalies on the study results.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients younger than 11 years or older than 15 years, as age can impact results due to stage of facial development; patients with other craniofacial disorders; patients who had undergone corrective surgeries in the facial or cranial region, as such surgeries can affect the study results; patients with serious chronic diseases (e.g., metabolic or endocrine disorders), which can influence facial and cranial development; and unclear or incomplete X-ray images, as high-quality images are necessary for accurate measurements.
During the study period, 263 X-ray images were reviewed. However, only 100 of these met the inclusion criteria and were used for the analysis. This ensured that the study data were consistent and allowed for precise comparisons between groups.
All patients from the study group were operated on using a modified Langenbeck method. This is a common surgical technique for cleft palate repair that aims to reestablish proper muscle function by repositioning the palatal muscles. It involves making relaxing incisions and elevating mucoperiosteal flaps to achieve tension-free closure of the cleft, thereby improving velopharyngeal competence and reducing the incidence of oronasal fistulas.
A digital X-ray device (Cranex Tom, Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) was used to perform all cephalograms. The digital X-rays received were analyzed in software designed for cephalometric analysis Ortodoncja 7.0 (Orto-Bajt, Wroclaw, Poland) using the method by Segner and Hasund [22]. Cephalometric landmarks used for the purpose of this study are presented in Figure 1.
Cephalometric variables used and their specific significance in orofacial clefts were presented in a previous study [23]. Table 1 presents reference values used for the analysis.
The alpha (α) level was set at 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance; the results yielding a p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify a normal data distribution. With normal distribution, mean and standard deviation were reported, whereas in other cases non-parametric descriptive statistics were reported, e.g., the median and the first and third quartiles.
Every analysis was performed by two operators and inter-examiner reliability was verified using ICC (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient). A mean value between the two measurements was used for further comparisons and analysis of correlations. Twenty-one randomly selected cephalograms were reanalyzed two weeks later by the same investigators, and ICC (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient) was calculated to assess inter- and intra-examiner reliability. The ICC values were adopted according to Cicchetti et al. [24], as excellent accordance between the measurements with ICC above 0.75, good accordance with ICC between 0.6 and 0.75, fair accordance with ICC: 0.4–0.6, and weak accordance with ICC below 0.4. To evaluate the agreement between two raters, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used, utilizing a two-way mixed-effects model.
The comparative analysis of two independent groups was conducted using Welch’s t-test for variables with normal distribution, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for the other variables. The correlations between numerical variables were quantified using Spearman’s rho. The correlations of the cephalometric variables were visually presented as a correlation matrix.
Analyses were conducted using the R Statistical language (version 4.3.1; R Core Team, 2023) on Windows 10 pro 64-bit (build 19045), using the packages irr (version 0.84.1; Gamer M et al., 2019), rstatix (version 0.7.2; Kassambara A, 2023), sjPlot (version 2.8.15; Lüdecke D, 2023), report (version 0.5.7; Makowski D et al., 2023), ggstatsplot (version 0.12.1; Patil I, 2021), gtsummary (version 1.7.2; Sjoberg D et al., 2021), MASS (version 7.3.60; Venables WN, Ripley BD, 2002), dplyr (version 1.1.3; Wickham H et al., 2023), and psych (version 2.3.9; William Revelle, 2023) [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].

3. Results

During the study period, 263 X-ray images were reviewed. However, only 100 of these met the inclusion criteria and were used for the analysis. The characteristics of the study and control groups referring to age and gender are presented in Table 2.
The evaluation of inter-rater reliability yielded highly reliable results, as evidenced by the ICC values and their respective CI 95%. For all the measurements, excellent inter-examiner reliability was demonstrated according to the method by Cicchetti et al. [25].
The distribution of cephalometric variables in the study and control groups is presented in Table 3.
A statistically significantly lower value of SNA (p < 0.001) was found in the CPO group versus the control group. Moreover, ANB was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in the study group, reflecting a sagittal maxillary deficiency. Mandibular angle (Gn-tgo-Ar) was significantly higher in the CPO group (p = 0.005), indicating a posterior mandibular rotation during growth.
Maxillary inclination to cranial base (NL-NSL) was increased in CPO both referring to the norm and to the control group, reflecting maxillary posterior rotation. Mandibular inclination to cranial base (ML-NSL) was higher in CPO children than in the control group, confirming a tendency to posterior mandibular rotation. Vertical intermaxillary angle (ML-NL) in CPO adolescents was lower than in the control group, indicating a more pronounced rotation of the maxilla compared to that of the mandible.
Nasolabial angle was significantly lower in CPO patients compared to the control group.
No statistically significant difference was found referring to the inclination of upper incisors to NA line, whereas lower incisors in the CPO group were slightly retruded—they had a lower angle of inclination to NB line. Thus, interincisal angle was higher in CPO patients.
WITS appraisal was lower in CPO than in the control group, confirming a sagittal jaw discrepancy. The index of the medium to lower face height did not significantly differ from that in non-cleft controls.
Correlations of cephalometric values with age are presented in Table 4.
Despite a narrow age span within the CPO and control groups, cephalometric variables proved age-dependent.
Correlations between cephalometric values are presented in Figure 2.
The correlations visible reflect the geometric interrelationship between cephalometric values.

4. Discussion

This rigorous analysis engaged a study population characterized by CPO counterbalanced by a matched control group free from orofacial clefts. Cephalometric variables including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters can be used to facilitate a recognition of morphological discrepancy and may aid in choosing therapeutic strategies for CPO patients.
The ICC for repeated cephalometric landmark identification on 2D lateral cephalometric radiographs in the literature is 0.8 [34,35]. No studies could be found describing the repeatability of landmark identification in patients with cleft palate. The first and second authors are experienced in the analysis of cephalometric radiographs of patients with clefts; however, values comprising the maxillary base seemed more difficult to identify due to the absence of bony palatal structures. Cephalometric analysis has recently been performed using modern technologies including machine learning and artificial intelligence and promising results were presented referring to accuracy and repeatability of landmark identification [36].
Few studies could be found in the literature describing cephalometric craniofacial morphology of patients with CPO [17,21,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Moreover, they are difficult to identify in databases of the scientific literature due to diverse use of terminology. A study dealing with cleft infants could be found [45], which does not refer to orthodontic or orthognathic treatment. Studies referring to cephalometric analysis in cleft patients are based on various cephalometric measurements (Table 5).
Due to various cephalometric landmarks and measurements having been used in previous studies, it is difficult to compare the results from different papers. The study groups of the papers found range from 32 to 189 subjects. Mean age in the studies tabularized ranges from 2 months to 21 years. Thus, the population of the present study belongs to the largest and is more homogenous.
Moreover, is difficult to compare the results of the present study to those from other studies, because the conclusions of the previous papers refer to different aspects of cephalometric analysis, including reliability of digital measurements [39], the benefit of 3D cephalometrics [42], comparison of different surgical techniques [40], craniofacial morphology of patients with different clefts [43], and comparison of craniofacial morphology in patients with cleft lip (CL) to those with SCP (submucous cleft palate) or adult patients with different unoperated clefts [21].
Although cephalometric analyses in different studies were made using various landmarks and measurements, most studies use ANB, NSBa, SNB, SNA, and WITS, and those variables could be compared.
The mean ANB angle of e1.39 in the study group is within normal values. Compared to the control group (3.34), it is significantly lower (p < 0.001), reflecting a mild sagittal discrepancy resulting from the cleft. On the other side, the mean age of the CPO group is 12.43 years and a possible decrease of ANB with age indicates a potential for worsening sagittal jaw relation but does not prognose a severe discrepancy. This is consistent with results referring to ANB angle in adult CPO patients; the mean value in the CPO group was −1.75 (2.95 in the control group) [23].
Lower SNA values in the CPO group compared to the control group further confirm a maxillary deficiency. A recent study on adult CPO patients [23] reported that SNA was lower in the CPO group, which may be due to the cleft itself and to scarring from palatal surgery [46].
A recent study by Tsuji et al. (2021) [17] describing craniofacial cephalometric morphology in CPO on 5-year-old girls (n = 36) provided findings that are not contradictory to the present study: a bimaxillary retrusion (mean values: SNA = 80.1, SNB = 76, ANB = 4.1) and an increased gonial angle (mean value = 130).
Nasolabial angle (NLA) is significantly lower in CPO, possibly indicating a flattened nasal tip due to a reduced skeletal support. However, no studies analyzing nasal morphology could be found to support this explanation.
The finding of the present study that nasolabial angle was significantly lower in CPO patients compared to the control group may reflect a reduced support of the columella from the retropositioned anterior nasal spine. Moreover, the difference was statistically insignificant in adult CPO patients [23], probably due to thinner soft tissues, additionally reduced by scarring from secondary surgical corrections.
The finding of the present study that lower incisors in the CPO group were retruded compared to the control group reflects dentoalveolar compensation of sagittal intermaxillary discrepancy in CPO. This discrepancy is more pronounced with growth, as in adult CPO patients both the maxillary and mandibular incisors are statistically significantly retruded compared to a control group [23].
It is interesting that ML-NL in the non-cleft group is higher than mean values by Segner and Hasund. Posterior mandibular rotation during growth should be considered a typical feature of craniofacial morphology in mandibular deficiency in CPO, confirming previous findings in adult CPO patients [24]. Since NL-NSL is increased both referring to the norm and to the control group, and the index of the medium to lower anterior face height is normal, this is evidence of decreased posterior maxillary height, similar to adult CPO patients [23].
The present study confirmed correlations of cephalometric values with age reported earlier in the literature referring to both healthy and cleft patients [47].
Craniofacial morphology in CPO depends on age, sex, cleft severity, and surgical procedures [21,40,41,42]. In the study by Parikakis et al. (2018) [40] comparing cephalometric values among two age groups (5-year-old and 10-year-old children) operated on, using the Veau–Wardill–Kilner technique (Nyl én, 1961) and minimal-incision technique (Mendoza et al., 1994), mandibular length was significantly shorter in the minimal-incision group. Referring to SNA angle, in the study by Parikakis et al. (2018) [40], mean SNA angle in four study groups with CPO (depending on cleft severity and surgical technique) ranged from 79.90 to 80.30, which is very similar to the results of the present study (80.10). Timing of hard palatal repair is regarded as an important factor influencing maxillary growth as well [41]. Thus, it is evident that reduced anterior maxillary height is a feature typical for operated patients with CPO. Similarly, in the study by Ye et al. (2015) [41], SNA was significantly lower in an operated cleft lip and palate group (UCLP and CPO) (76.59 ± 4.49) than in an unoperated control group of UCLP and CPO patients (82.07 ± 2.41), as well. However, it has to be noted that the study groups were small (n = 40 each) and non-homogenous. Thus, the SNA values could be lower than in the present study due to inclusion of UCLP patients (characterized by more severe maxillary deficiency).
In the study by Heliövaara et al. (2009) [39] on 7-yearold boys with operated SCP, mean SNA was 79.7 ± 2.8, very similar to the present study. It is noteworthy that the study group was younger than in the present study and was characterized by a low severity of the cleft. In 6-year-old girls with operated CPO, mean SNA was 78.9 ± 3.6 [38], a lower value than in the present study, probably due to the younger age of patients included by Heliövaara et al. (2003) [38].
A possible limitation of the present study refers to manual identifying cephalometric landmarks. An obvious direction for future research is the use of AI tools for further analysis. Future studies should focus on developing more advanced machine learning models, including deep learning techniques, to enhance the accuracy and reliability of cephalometric analysis. Additionally, exploring how AI tools can be implemented into everyday clinical practice to improve efficiency and patient outcomes is essential. Such research could also boost the effectiveness of models across diverse patient groups including severe cleft cases [44,45,46].
Another research area should be the interdisciplinary applications of AI in orthodontics, maxillofacial surgery, and craniofacial studies. Comparative studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of AI technologies compared to traditional-manual methods [44,45,46].

5. Conclusions

In adolescents with CPO, maxillary deficiency is present, without evidence of severe sagittal jaw discrepancy, with a slight compensatory lingual inclination of the lower incisors. Mandibular deficiency in CPO is associated with posterior rotation (increased mandibular angle).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; methodology, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; software, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; validation, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; formal analysis, A.Z., B.W.-S. and J.J.-O.; investigation, A.Z., B.W.-S. and J.J.-O.; resources, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; data curation, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; writing—review and editing, A.Z., K.G. and J.J.-O.; visualization, A.Z.; supervision, K.G. and J.J.-O.; project administration, A.Z. and J.J.-O.; funding acquisition, K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the decision KB-006/04/2022/Z approved on 21 January 2022 of the Bioethical Committee Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, this study is exempt from ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available from corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Parker, S.E.; Mai, C.T.; Canfield, M.A.; Rickard, R.; Wang, Y.; Meyer, R.E.; Anderson, P.; Mason, C.A.; Collins, J.S.; Kirby, R.S.; et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res. A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 2010, 88, 1008–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dixon, M.J.; Marazita, M.L.; Beaty, T.H.; Murray, J.C. Cleft lip and palate: Understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jagessur, A.; Farlie, P.G.; Kilpatrick, N. The genetics of isolated orofacial clefts: From genotypes to subphenotypes. Oral Dis. 2009, 15, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wehby, G.L.; Cassell, C.H. The impact of orofacial clefts on quality of life and healthcare use and costs. Oral Dis. 2010, 16, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Luzzi, V.; Zumbo, G.; Guaragna, M.; Di Carlo, G.; Ierardo, G.; Sfasciotti, G.L.; Bossù, M.; Vozza, I.; Polimeni, A. The Role of the Pediatric Dentist in the Multidisciplinary Management of the Cleft Lip Palate Patient. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Biedziak, B.; Dąbrowska, J.; Szponar-Żurowska, A.; Bukowska-Olech, E.; Jamsheer, A.; Mojs, E.; Mulle, J.; Płoski, R.; Mostowska, A. Identification of a new familial case of 3q29 deletion syndrome associated with cleft lip and palate via whole-exome sequencing. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2023, 191, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fogh-Andersen, P. Inheritance of Harelip and Cleft Palate: Contribution to the Elucidation of the Etiology of the Congenital Clefts of the Face. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1947, 133, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Veau, V. Division Palatine: Anatomie, Chirurgie, Phonétique; Masson: Paris, France, 1931. [Google Scholar]
  9. Womersley, J.; Stone, D.H. Epidemiology of facial clefts. Arch. Dis. Child. 1987, 62, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Kernahan, D.A.; Stark, R.B. A new classification for cleft lip and cleft palate. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Transplant. Bull. 1958, 22, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berlin, A.J. Classification of cleft lip and palate. In Cleft Lip and Palate; Little, Brown: Boston, MA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  12. Broadbent, T.R.; Fogh-Andersen, P.; Berlin, A.J.; Karfik, V.; Matthews, D.N.; Pfeifer, G. Report of the Subcommittee on Nomenclature and Classification of Clefts of Lip, Alveolus and Palate and Proposals for Further Activities; Newsletter of the International Confederation for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [Monograph]: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  13. Millard, R.D., Jr. The naming and classifying of clefts. In Cleft Craft; Little, Brown, and Co. USA: Boston, MA, USA, 1976; Volume I, pp. 41–55. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carroll, K.; Mossey, P.A. Anatomical variations in clefts of the lip with or without cleft palate. Plast. Surg. Int. 2012, 2012, 542078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kernahan, D.A. The striped Y: A symbolic classification for cleft lips and palate. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1971, 47, 469–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Madachi, K.; Takagi, R.; Asahito, Y.; Kodama, R.; Ominato, A.; Iila, K.; Ono, K.; Saito, I. Cephalometric evaluation after two-stage palatoplasty combined with a Hotz plate: A comparative study between the modified Furlow and Widmaier-Perko methods. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tsuji, K.; Haruyama, N.; Nomura, S.; Murata, N.; Yoshizaki, K.; Mitsuyasu, T.; Nakano, H.; Nakamura, S.; Mori, Y.; Takahashi, I. Characteristics of craniofacial morphology and factors affecting them in patients with isolated cleft palate. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bené de Oliveira, M.E.; Borba da Rocha Cordeiro, N.; de Andrade Veras, S.R.; Costa de Melo, E.M.; Franca Gurgel, L.G.; Santos de Figueira, M.A. Malocclusion in Children Aged 8 to 10 Years Old With Operated Isolated Cleft Palate. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2021, 32, e156–e159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heliövaara, A.; Ranta, R. One-stage closure of isolated cleft palate with the Veau-Wardill-Kilner V to Y pushback procedure or the Cronin modification: III. Comparison of lateral craniofacial morphology. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1993, 51, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Azouz, V.; Ng, M.; Patel, N.; Murthy, A.S. Low incidence of maxillary hypoplasia in isolated cleft palate. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 42, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Diah, E.; Lo, L.J.; Huang, C.S.; Sudjatmiko, G.; Susanto, I.; Chen, Y.R. Maxillary growth of adult patients with unoperated cleft: Answers to the debates. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2007, 60, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Segner, D.; Hasund, A. Individualisierte Kefalometrie; Dietmar Segner Verlag: Hamburg, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zawiślak, A.; Wędrychowska-Szulc, B.; Grocholewicz, K.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J. Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Caucasian Adult Patients with Cleft Palate Only (CPO). Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Cicchetti, D.V.; Domenic, V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol. Assess. 1994, 6, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gamer, M.; Lemon, J. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. R Package, version 0.84.1; 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  26. Kassambara, A. rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests. R Package, version 0.7.2; 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatix (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  27. Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. R Package, version 2.8.15; 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  28. Makowski, D.; Lüdecke, D.; Patil, I.; Thériault, R.; Ben-Shachar, M.; Wiernik, B. Automated Results Reporting as a Practical Tool to Improve Reproducibility and Methodological Best Practices Adoption. CRAN. 2023. Available online: https://easystats.github.io/report/ (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  29. Patil, I. Visualizations with statistical details: The ‘ggstatsplot’ approach. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sjoberg, D.; Whiting, K.; Curry, M.; Lavery, J.; Larmarange, J. Reproducible Summary Tables with the gtsummary Package. R J. 2021, 13, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Venables, W.N.; Ripley, B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed.; Springer: New York, NJ, USA, 2002; ISBN 0-387-95457-0. Available online: https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/ (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  32. Wickham, H.; Bryan, J. readxl: Read Excel Files. R Package, version 1.4.3; 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  33. Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R Package, version 2.3.9; 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (accessed on 1 April 2024).
  34. Hariharan, A.; Diwakar, N.R.; Jayanthi, K.; Hema, H.M.; Deepukrishna, S.; Ghaste, S.R. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms. Indian J. Dent. Res. Off. Publ. Indian Soc. Dent. Res. 2016, 27, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Trpkova, B.; Major, P.; Prasad, N.; Nebbe, B. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. Off. Publ. Am. Assoc. Orthod. 1997, 112, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kazimierczak, N.; Kazimierczak, W.; Serafin, Z.; Nowicki, P.; Nożewski, J.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J. AI in Orthodontics: Revolutionizing Diagnostics and Treatment Planning-A Comprehensive Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  37. da-Silva, E.O.; Batista, J.E.; Medeiros, M.A.; Fonteles, S.M. Craniofacial anthropometric studies in Waardenburg syndrome type I. Clin. Genet. 1993, 44, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Heliövaara, A.; Ranta, R.; Rautio, J. Craniofacial cephalometric morphology in six-year-old girls with submucous cleft palate and isolated cleft palate. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2003, 61, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Heliövaara, A.; Rautio, J. Craniofacial and pharyngeal cephalometric morphology in seven-year-old boys with unoperated submucous cleft palate and without a cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2009, 46, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Parikakis, K.A.; Larson, O.; Karsten, A. Minimal incision palatoplasty with or without muscle reconstruction in patients with isolated cleft palate: A cast and medical records analysis. Eur. J. Orthod. 2018, 40, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ye, B.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Jing, H.; Hu, J. A comparative cephalometric study for adult operated cleft palate and unoperated cleft palate patients. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. Off. Publ. Eur. Assoc. Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2015, 43, 1218–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Antonarakis, G.S.; Watts, G.; Daskalogiannakis, J. The need for orthognathic surgery in nonsyndromic patients with repaired isolated cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. Off. Publ. Am. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Assoc. 2015, 52, e8–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lu, D.; Shi, B.; Wang, H.; Zheng, Q. The comparative study of craniofacial structural characteristic of individuals with different types of cleft palate. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2007, 59, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zawiślak, A.; Jankowska, A.; Grocholewicz, K.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J. Morphological Variations and Anomalies of the Sella Turcica on Lateral Cephalograms of Cleft-Palate-Only (CPO) Patients. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  45. Dahl, E.; Kreiborg, S.; Jensen, B.L.; Fogh-Andersen, P. Comparison of craniofacial morphology in infants with incomplete cleft lip and infants with isolated cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1982, 19, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Janiszewska-Olszowska, J.; Grocholewicz, K.; Mazur, M.; Jedliński, M. Influence of Primary Palatal Surgery on Craniofacial Morphology in Patients with Cleft Palate Only (CPO)-Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Del Guercio, F.; Meazzini, M.C.; Garattini, G.; Morabito, A.; Semb, G.; Brusati, R. A cephalometric intercentre comparison of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate at 5 and 10 years of age. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 32, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 04507 g001
Figure 1. Cephalometric landmarks used for the purpose of this study.
Figure 1. Cephalometric landmarks used for the purpose of this study.
Jcm 13 04507 g001
Jcm 13 04507 g002
Figure 2. The interrelationship between cephalometric values in the study group.
Figure 2. The interrelationship between cephalometric values in the study group.
Jcm 13 04507 g002
Table 1. Cephalometric variables used (according to Segner and Hasund, 1998).
Table 1. Cephalometric variables used (according to Segner and Hasund, 1998).
AbbreviationMean ValueRangeReference Points or Lines
SNA8279–85Sella-Nasion-A: Sagittal maxillary position referring to cranial base
SNB8077–83Sella-Nasion-B: Sagittal position of the mandibular alveolar part referring to cranial base
ANB20–4A-Nasion-B: Sagittal relation between the maxilla and mandible
SNPg8278–84A-Nasion-Pg: Sagittal position of the chin referring to cranial base
NL-NSL84–12Maxillary base-cranial base: Vertical maxillary inclination relative to cranial base
ML-NSL2823–33Mandibular base-cranial base: Vertical mandibular inclination relative to cranial base
ML-NL2012–27Maxillary base-cranial base: Vertical jaw relationship
NS-Ba132128–136Inclination of the clivus to cranial base
Gn-tgo-Ar122115–129Gonial angle
H96–12Upper lip–soft-tissue chin–NB line: Angle between the line of the upper lip and soft-tissue chin relative to line NB—inclination of the soft tissue profile
1+:1−133125–141Angle between the long axes of upper and lower central incisors
1+:NA2118–25Upper incisor inclination to NA line
1+:NB2420–28Lower incisor inclination to NB line
Nasolabial angle110103–117Nasal base–upper lip: Angle between nasal base and upper lip
Index8073–87Proportion between the upper and lower face height (in percentage)
Pg:NB (mm)2.30.3–4.3Distance Pg–NB line: Describes chin prominence
1+:NA (mm)3.71.7–5.7Distance: Incisal edge of the upper central incisor–NA line
1−:NB (mm)3.8−1.2–8.8Distance: Incisal edge of the lower central incisor–NB line
Wits (mm)0−2–2Distance: Perpendicular projections of points A and B on the occlusal plane
Table 2. Characteristics of the study sample.
Table 2. Characteristics of the study sample.
CharacteristicTotal CohortGroupp
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test
Mean (Q1, Q3)CPO,
n = 100		Control,
n = 100
Age, years12.42 (11.61, 14.10)12.43 (11.11, 14.24)12.25 (12.00, 14.00)0.505
Gender
girls100.00 (50.00%)50.00 (50.00%)50.00 (50.00%)
boys100.00 (50.00%)50.00 (50.00%)50.00 (50.00%)
Table 3. Cephalometric variables of the study and control groups.
Table 3. Cephalometric variables of the study and control groups.
Cephalometric
Variable (Unit)		Total Sample
n = 200		Groupp
(Welch’s t-Test) 1
p
(Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test) 2
CPO,
n = 100		Control,
n = 100
Mean (SD) a
Median (Q1, Q3) b		Mean (SD) a
Median (Q1, Q3) b		Mean (SD) a
Median (Q1, Q3) b
SNA (°)79.07 (4.42) a77.70 (4.93) a80.44 (3.34) a<0.001 1
SNB (°)76.71 (4.53) a76.31 (5.07) a77.11 (3.90) a0.217 1
ANB (°)2.37 (3.33) a1.39 (3.42) a3.34 (2.95) a<0.001 1
SNPg (°)77.47 (4.57) a77.19 (5.10) a77.75 (3.99) a0.395 1
NSBa (°)130.69 (6.00) a130.71 (6.60) a130.68 (5.36) a0.964 1
GntgoAr (°)128.90 (7.43) a130.38(5.36) a127.42 (7.30) a0.005 1
NL-NSL (°)11.96 (5.30) a15.40 (4.78) a8.52 (3.12) a<0.001 1
ML-NSL (°)36.19 (6.90) a37.53 (7.52) a34.85 (5.95) a0.006 1
ML-NL (°)24.24 (7.05) a22.14 (7.34) a26.34 (6.10) a<0.001 1
H11.27 (5.89) a10.52 (5.74) a12.01 (5.98) a0.074 1
1+:1 (°)131.00 (11.67) a134.91 (11.64) a127.09 (10.37) a<0.001 1
1+:NA (°)23.15 (8.22) a23.29 (8.97) a23.01 (7.44) a0.810 1
1−:NB (°)24.68
(18.78, 28.29) b		21.50 b
(16.01, 25.11)		26.75 b
(23.38, 30.10)		<0.001 2
Pg:NB (mm)1.05
(0.20, 2.56) b		1.10
(0.39, 1.96) b		0.95
(0.00, 6.45) b		0.587 2
1+:NA (mm)2.45
(1.20, 5.41) b		2.55
(1.11, 3.80) b		2.40 (1.28, 19.23) b0.006 2
1−:NB (mm)2.40
(1.30, 5.43) b		1.80
(0.83, 3.43) b		3.00 (1.70, 20.18) b<0.001 2
Wits (mm)0.80
(−3.29, 0.96) b		−1.65
(−3.29, 0.20) b		−0.05
(−3.10, 2.10) b		0.010 2
Nasolabial angle (°)111.90
(103.66, 119.33) b		106.85 (98.81, 116.48) b114.90 (108.28, 122.08) b<0.001 2
Index82.18 (75.88, 86.18) b81.65 (74.50, 86.24) b82.30 (78.30, 86.10) b0.368 2
Table 4. Correlations between cephalometric variables and age in the study (CPO) and control groups.
Table 4. Correlations between cephalometric variables and age in the study (CPO) and control groups.
VariableCorrelations between Cephalometric Variables and Age
Study GroupControl Group
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient
SNA [°]r = −0.018, p = 0.776r = 0.062, p = 0.317
SNB [°]r = 0.179, p = 0.004 *r = 0.172, p = 0.005 *
ANB [°]r = −0.251, p < 0.001 *r = −0.165, p = 0.007 *
SNPg [°]r = 0.246, p < 0.001 *r = 0.232, p < 0.001 *
NSBa [°]r = −0.013, p = 0.838r = −0.049, p = 0.428
GntgoAr [°]r = −0.2, p = 0.001 *r = −0.125, p = 0.043 *
NL-NSL [°]r = −0.207, p = 0.001 *r = −0.015, p = 0.805
ML-NSL [°]r = −0.132, p = 0.032 *r = −0.148, p = 0.016 *
ML-NL [°]r = 0.044, p = 0.481r = −0.132, p = 0.033 *
Hr = −0.113, p = 0.068r = −0.242, p < 0.001 *
1+:1− angle [°]r = −0.245, p < 0.001 *r = 0.084, p = 0.174
1+:NA angle [°]r = 0.287, p < 0.001 *r = 0.004, p = 0.95
1−:NB angle [°]r = 0.155, p = 0.012 *r = −0.019, p = 0.764
Nasolabial angle [°]r = −0.204, p = 0.001 *r = −0.144, p = 0.02 *
Pg:NB [mm]r = 0.374, p < 0.001 *r = 0.086, p = 0.166
1+:NA [mm]r = 0.474, p < 0.001 *r = −0.028, p = 0.654
1−:NB [mm]r = 0.22, p < 0.001 *r = −0.072, p = 0.246
Wits [mm]r = −0.097, p = 0.117r = −0.057, p = 0.357
Indexr = 0.026, p = 0.675r = −0.186, p = 0.002 *
* Statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Studies on cephalometric analysis in children with CPO (from most recent to oldest).
Table 5. Studies on cephalometric analysis in children with CPO (from most recent to oldest).
AuthorYearCharacteristics of SubjectsCephalometric Measurements
Number
of Subjects		OriginGenderMean Age (Age Range)Characteristics of Malformation
Tsuji K et al. [17]202177JapaneseF5.36 (±0.36)CPOFacial angle, AB plane, Y-axis, FH to SN, SNA, SNB, ANB, NPog to SN, nasal floor to SN, nasal floor to FH, mandibular plane to SN, mandibular plane to FH, ramus plane to SN, ramus plane to FH, gonial angle, U1 to SN, U1 to FH, L1 to mandibular plane, interincisal angle, occlusal plane to SN, occlusal plane to FH, N-S, N-ANS, ANS-Me, N-ME, S’-Ptm’, A’-Ptm’, Ptm’-Ms, A’-Ms, Is-Is’, Mo-Ms, Is-Mo, Gn-Cd, Pog’-Go, Cd-Go, Ii-Ii’, Mo-Mi, Ii-Mo
Da Silva F. et al. [37]199361Latin
American		F, M11 months (M)
2 months (F)		CPOSN, Go-Gn, Co-Go, Co-Gn, P-NB, CoGoMe, S-Go, N-Me, ANS-Me, SNB, SNGoGn, SNGn
Heliövaara A. et al. [38]200393CaucasianF6.2 (range 5.5–7.5)CPONSBa, NS, SBa, NBa, ANA, SNB, ANB, SNPog, ANS-Me, N-ANS, S-Go, GN-CD, Me-GO, Ar-Go, NSL-ML, NL-NSL, Sna, Snb, anb, Snpog, n-sn-pog, n-prn-pog, cm-sn-ls
Diah E et al. [21]200792IndianF, M21.6 (range 16–47 years)UCL, UCLP, BCLP, CPOSNA
Lu. D.W. et al. [43]2007107ChineseF, M7.5 years
7.8 years
7.2 years
7.3 years		TCS
PRS
CLP
CPO		SNA, SNB, ANB, MP-SN, OP-SN, Y-axis, PP-FH, PP-MP, BaNPtGn, ArGoMe, AGNH-Go-Me, NMe, N-ANS, ANS-Me, ANS-Pt, S-Pt, Cd-Go, Pog-Go, AGNH-AGNH’, S-Go, S-Go/N-Me, ANS-Me/N-Me
Heliövaara A. et al. [39]200832CaucasianM6.8 (range 5.5 to 8.6 years)SCPNSBa, SNA, SNB, ANB, SNPg, ANS-PM, N-ANS, ANS-ME, S-GO, NSL-ML, GN-CD, ME-GO, Ar-GO, Sna, Snb, anb, BA-PM, ad1-PM, ad1-BA, ad2-PM, ad2-so, pas, PM-u, HY-HY’
Antonarakis G.S. et al. [42] 2015189Caucasian, Asian,
African		F, MMinimum age of 15 yearsPRS excludedMaxillary length, maxillary protrusion, maxillary height, maxillary inclination
Ye B. et al. [41]201580ChineseF, M19.3 (range 16 to 33 years)
19.7 (range 17 to 31 years)		UCLP without palate repair
UCLP with lip and palate repair		SNA, NA-FH, facial angle, SNB, AntCranBase, GoMe/SN, MP-FH, MP-SN, ANB, Y-axis, %Nose, NAAGn, Pog-NB
Parikakis K. et al. [40]2018170CaucasianF, M5 (mean age ± 0.6 years) and
10 (mean age 10.3 ± 0.6 years)		PRS excludedNSBa, SNA, ANB, NSL-NL, NSL-ML, ML-RL, NApg, palatal plane length, mandibular length, n-sp’/n-gn (%), posterior upper FH, posterior FH, facial convexity (G-Sn-Pg’)
CPO—cleft palate only, TCS—Treacher–Collins syndrome, PRS—Pierre–Robin sequence, CLP—cleft lip and palate, UCLP—unilateral cleft lip and palate, SCP—submucous cleft palate.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zawiślak, A.; Wędrychowska-Szulc, B.; Grocholewicz, K.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J. Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Polish Adolescents with Cleft Palate Only. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154507

AMA Style

Zawiślak A, Wędrychowska-Szulc B, Grocholewicz K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J. Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Polish Adolescents with Cleft Palate Only. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(15):4507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154507

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zawiślak, Alicja, Barbara Wędrychowska-Szulc, Katarzyna Grocholewicz, and Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska. 2024. "Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Polish Adolescents with Cleft Palate Only" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 15: 4507. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154507

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop