Next Article in Journal
Is There Any Purpose in Routine Syndesmotic Screw Removal? Systematic Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Joint Preservation Surgery Using Supramalleolar Osteotomy Combined with Posterior Tibial Tendon Release and Lateral Ligament Augmentation in Advanced Varus Ankle Arthritis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Craniofacial Cephalometric Morphology in Polish Adolescents with Cleft Palate Only
 
 
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 16
10.3390/jcm13164804
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

Prenatal Diagnosis of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study

by
Anca Daniela Brăila
1,†,
Constantin Marian Damian
1,†,
Cristina-Crenguţa Albu
2,*,
Oana Botoacă
3,*,
Laurențiu Mihai Dȋră
1,
Ştefan-Dimitrie Albu
4,
Matei Georgian Brăila
5,
Andreea-Mariana Bănățeanu
3,
Cristian-Viorel Poalelungi
6 and
Claudia Florina Bogdan-Andreescu
3
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
2
Department of Genetics, Faculty of Dentistry, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania
3
Department of Speciality Disciplines, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Titu Maiorescu” University, 031593 Bucharest, Romania
4
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania
5
Faculty of Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania
6
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(16), 4804; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164804
Submission received: 15 July 2024 / Revised: 11 August 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 15 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

:
Cleft lip and/or palate are prevalent congenital anomalies. Early and accurate diagnosis allows proper case management. The Objective: This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the association between cleft lip and palate and other congenital anomalies. Methods: This study analyzed 17 pregnancies prenatally diagnosed with cleft lip and palate. The investigations consisted of ultrasound examination, fetal karyotyping through amniocentesis, and family tree analysis. In the presence of an abnormal fetal karyotype, the parental karyotype was also indicated. Results: Of the 17 cases identified, 9 (52.94%) were syndromic and 8 (47.06%) were non-syndromic. The genetic syndromes identified in association with cleft lip and palate in this study included translocation syndrome (one case), Patau syndrome, trisomy 13 (seven cases), and Edwards syndrome, mosaic trisomy 18 (one case). Conclusions: A comprehensive approach ensures a thorough assessment and accurate diagnosis. Early detection and a multidisciplinary approach allow appropriate case management.

1. Introduction

Cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is one of the most prevalent congenital anomalies of the craniofacial region. This condition not only alters physical appearance but also significantly affects the functionality of the oral and nasal structures [1,2]. Understanding embryological development and the resulting pathophysiological changes due to CLP is important for diagnosis.
During the first 10 weeks of embryogenesis, facial development involves the growth and fusion of several distinct processes. The primary palate forms the initial portion of the mouth, while the secondary palate subsequently develops to complete the formation of hard and soft palates. These structures are supposed to fuse at the midline of the nasal septum. However, in cases of CLP, fusion is incomplete [3].
The failure of fusion can be partial or complete, leading to various manifestations:
-
Cleft lip (CL): involves only the lip, generally the upper lip, and may range from a small notch to a complete separation extending into the nose.
-
Cleft lip and palate (CLP): involves both the lip and the palate. This is a more severe manifestation that significantly affects speech and eating, and is often associated with other dental and orthodontic issues.
-
Cleft palate (CP): affects only the palate, either hard, soft, or both. This type primarily impacts speech and swallowing.
Orofacial clefts are among the most common head and neck birth defects worldwide. According to Geneser et al., the incidence of orofacial clefts is approximately 1 in 700 live births [4]. However, this rate exhibits considerable geographic variation, suggesting the influence of genetic, environmental, and possibly socioeconomic factors [4].
A comprehensive systematic review reported prevalence rates of 0.33 per 1000 live births for cleft lips and 0.45 per 1000 for cleft lip and palate combinations [5].
The clinical classification of orofacial clefts includes syndromic and non-syndromic forms, based on associated anomalies and/or medical conditions [6]. This classification guides both clinical management and genetic counseling. Syndromic CLPs are characterized by additional anomalies or medical conditions that go beyond the cleft itself. These clefts are part of broader genetic syndromes and are often associated with other developmental, structural, and/or cognitive anomalies. Syndromic CLPs account for approximately 30% of all cases of cleft lip and palate cases [7].
The genetic basis for many syndromic CLPs follows Mendelian inheritance patterns (autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, or X-linked). These conditions exhibit significant variability in how they manifest (expressivity), and not all individuals who carry a predisposing genetic variant will exhibit the trait (incomplete penetrance) [7]. This genetic complexity necessitates thorough clinical and genetic evaluation to identify the specific syndrome and tailor management accordingly.
Non-syndromic CLPs, the more common form, do not have associated anomalies and constitute approximately 70% of all CLP cases [8]. These clefts are considered to have a complex etiology, involving interactions between multiple genetic factors and environmental influences. The absence of additional congenital anomalies often leads to a primary focus on the cleft for surgical and supportive care.
CLPs can be diagnosed prenatally or postnatally during neonatal examination. Prenatal diagnosis typically involves ultrasound scans conducted in the second trimester of pregnancy, at around 20 weeks of gestation, which have become a routine component of antenatal care in most European countries [9]. At this stage of gestation, the face is sufficiently developed to allow the visualization of an orofacial cleft via ultrasound [10]. However, the success rate of detecting CLP through ultrasound largely depends on different factors such as gestational age, maternal obesity, volume of amniotic fluid, coexisting fetal anomalies, fetal position and mobility, as well as the expertise of the sonographers [11,12].
CLP-associated conditions pose unique challenges for care providers due to their complexity and the various associated complications that may arise. In such cases, genetic tests are decisive because they can identify specific mutations and chromosomal abnormalities associated with CLPs.
Fetuses with associated anomalies, regardless of the presence of aneuploidy, have a poor prognosis, with a very high mortality rate, and an increased likelihood of prematurity and a low birth weight. Fetuses with isolated CLPs have a good prognosis, with a gestational age and weight at birth comparable with term babies [13].
While prenatal ultrasound can detect early CPLs, amniocentesis is advised to evaluate associated genetic conditions, as part of prenatal diagnosis [14,15]. Prenatal identification of CLP enables detailed parental counseling and early intervention. This process includes discussions regarding the potential implications of the anomaly and the prognosis for surgical correction. Furthermore, given that CLPs may co-occur with other anomalies and genetic abnormalities, early detection via prenatal screening allows for an extensive fetal examination to identify additional, potentially more severe anomalies.
This study aimed to investigate the association between CLPs and other congenital anomalies.

2. Materials and Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed a cohort of pregnancies examined in a private clinic in Bucharest between 1 May 2021 and 1 April 2024. The inclusion criteria were pregnancies diagnosed with oral clefts.
During this period, 3347 pregnant women were examined. Following specialized investigations, 30 pregnancies were prenatally diagnosed with various congenital fetal malformations located in the head and neck region. From this group, we isolated a study cohort comprising 17 pregnancies diagnosed prenatally with different types of orofacial clefts.
The standard protocol in cases of CLP consists of the following:
-
Advanced ultrasound imaging using 3D/4D imaging technology provides detailed views of the fetal anatomy, allowing for the precise assessment of detected anomalies.
-
Genetic testing: amniocentesis is commonly performed to obtain a sample of amniotic fluid for fetal karyotyping. This procedure helps to identify chromosomal abnormalities.
-
Parental karyotyping and family tree: when an abnormal fetal karyotype is identified, parental karyotyping is recommended to determine if the chromosomal abnormality is inherited or de novo. This information is crucial for genetic counseling and future pregnancy planning.
The ultrasound examination was conducted transabdominally using a Voluson E10 BT18 ultrasound machine (GE Healthcare division, Wauwatosa, WI, USA), equipped with an RM6C three-dimensional/four-dimensional (3D/4D) volumetric probe. This advanced imaging technology allowed detailed visualization of fetal structures.
The following classification was used for clefts:
-
Unilateral cleft lip (UCL), left (UCLL), and right (UCLR);
-
Bilateral cleft lip (BCL);
-
Cleft palate (CP);
-
Cleft palate with unilateral cleft lip (UCLP), left (UCLPL), and right (UCLPR);
-
Bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP).
Upon identification of the oral clefts during the ultrasound scan, further investigations were recommended. These included amniocentesis, which involves sampling the amniotic fluid, and the determination of the fetal karyotype to check for any genetic abnormalities.
In the presence of an abnormal fetal karyotype, the parental karyotype was indicated from peripheral blood. This additional step helps to identify any genetic anomalies that might be inherited and provides valuable information for genetic counseling and future pregnancy planning.
Patients were provided with a clear explanation of the consent form, detailing the clinical, paraclinical, and ultrasound examinations. The procedural steps necessary for conducting specialized investigations were also explained, along with the content of the consent form regarding the protection of personal data.
Ethics approval was obtained from the local Ethics Committee of the Alco San Medical Center in Bucharest, Romania. Written informed consent for participation was obtained from all the parents.

3. Results

The results are summarized in Table 1. The percentage of CLPs in this study was 0.51% during the pregnancy screening conducted in the second trimester at the clinical center. Of the 17 cases identified, 9 (52.94%) were syndromic and 8 (47.06%) were non-syndromic cases of CLP. The genetic syndromes identified in association with CLP in this study included translocation syndrome (one case male), Patau syndrome, trisomy 13 (seven cases, five male and two female), and Edwards syndrome, mosaic trisomy 18 (one case male). All cases were isolated and non-hereditary, based on paternal karyotype and family tree analysis.
Among these 17 pregnancies with CLPs, 15 were associated with other anomalies, and abnormal chromosomal formulas were identified in 9 (52.94%) cases. The frequency of associated anomalies is detailed in Table 2.
The CLP types are presented in Table 3. There was only one case (5.88%) with bilateral CLP, while the remaining cases were unilateral: seven (41.18%) on the right side and nine (52.94%) on the left side.
Figure 1 shows mean weeks of pregnancy at diagnosis by age group indicating differences in the timing of diagnosis, and Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate two representative cases, one syndromic and one non-syndromic.
The mean maternal age was 29.94 years, and the mean gestational age at diagnosis was 21.17 weeks. Table 4 presents the association between maternal age and the occurrence of CLP, distinguishing between syndromic and non-syndromic cases.
The mean paternal age was 36.18 years. Table 5 presents the association between paternal age and the occurrence of CLP, distinguishing between syndromic and non-syndromic cases.
All pregnancies were monofetal, with 5 (29.41%) female and 12 (70.59%) male fetuses. Most pregnancies were first pregnancies (13, or 76.47%), while 4 (23.52%) were second pregnancies.

4. Discussion

Ultrasound screening is a non-invasive method, aimed to assess fetal anatomy and detect any fetal anomalies [16], with a high degree of accuracy, to determine types of facial clefts [17]. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging enables reconstruction, allows for more precise visualization of fetal dental and craniofacial structures [18], and improves the prenatal detection rate of CLPs, especially those involving the secondary palate [12,19,20].
The reported rate of prenatal CLP detection in the current literature varies, depending on the database used. For instance, 62 fetuses of 38,760 pregnancies in the Netherlands were identified with CLPs, and 39% of cases had associated anomalies in a prospective national study using 2D ultrasound [21].
The high incidence of CLP in our study, 17 cases from 3347 pregnancies, with 3 (17.65%) cases being second opinions, reflects our status as a leading referral center for prenatal diagnosis and comprehensive multidisciplinary care. Our advanced diagnostic capabilities enable early detection and detailed assessment of craniofacial anomalies, attracting a significant number of referrals from neighboring regions. Our multidisciplinary team, which includes specialists in obstetrics–gynecology, genetics, pediatrics, dentistry, and psychology, collaborates to provide detailed genetic counseling. This helps families understand the potential genetic factors and recurrence risks associated with CLPs and develop individualized treatment plans. This integrated approach ensures optimal outcomes in the management of these congenital conditions and offers psychosocial support for affected families.
All diagnoses resulting from ultrasound prenatal examination were confirmed by the final diagnoses obtained from postnatal physical examination or fetal autopsy. As a result, high-precision ultrasonography with 3D imaging reconstruction had 100% accuracy.
In our study, the most frequent type of cleft was UCLP, with four cases being non-syndromic and eight cases being syndromic. Additionally, the only case of BCLP observed was syndromic.
In a related study based on data from a prenatal diagnosis center, 15 cases of 2944 pregnant women examined in the first trimester were described, with all cases confirmed during second-trimester ultrasonography [22].
Accurate prenatal diagnosis allows for early intervention planning and better management of the condition. The prognosis of a newborn diagnosed with CLP significantly depends on the accuracy of the prenatal diagnosis and the presence of associated malformations [23]. Additionally, the prognosis is influenced by whether the CLP is an isolated anomaly or part of a syndrome involving other organs or systems.
A comprehensive epidemiologic study by Calzolari et al., which analyzed nearly 6 million births in Europe, identified that musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and central nervous system defects are frequently associated with cleft lip and/or palate [24].
Another study from India identified the following anomalies associated with CLP: facial region anomalies were the most frequent (21%), followed by ocular anomalies (17%), central nervous system anomalies (15%), gastrointestinal system anomalies (3%), and urogenital system anomalies (2%) [14]. Additionally, 34 patients (2%) had recognized non-chromosomal syndromes [25].
A high incidence of additional anomalies was recorded in a large cohort study from Germany [17]. The most common anomalies associated with CLP were cardiac, cerebral, extremity, facial, and ocular [17].
In our study, the most frequent defects associated with CLP were cardiovascular, anomalies affecting craniofacial bones and limbs, and brain anomalies. Other malformations appeared in the kidneys, eyes, spine, and stomach.
Although increased nuchal translucency is considered a marker for the presence of CLP [10], we founded this association in just one case.
Of the 17 pregnancies, only 2 cases (11.76%) had isolated CL, while the remaining 15 cases (88.24%) had associated anomalies. Specifically, 52.94% of the cases had chromosomal anomalies. The two cases without associated anomalies, confirmed postnatally, involved female fetuses.
The chromosomal syndromes recognized in this study were, in order of frequency, Patau syndrome or trisomy 13 (seven cases), translocation syndrome (one case) and Edwards syndrome, mosaic trisomy 18 (one case), all with CLP. The most frequent aneuploidy in our study was Patau syndrome, which is recognized by the following triad: microphthalmia, polydactyly, and CP [18]
The majority of chromosomal syndromes in this study were found in male pregnancies, with seven out of nine cases involving male fetuses. There were two cases of female pregnancy with Patau syndrome (trisomy 13).
The number of trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) cases in this study is notably high compared to the estimated incidence, which ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 20,000 births [26].
The majority of Patau syndrome cases occurred in primiparous women, with only one case occurring in a second pregnancy highlighting a possible area for focused prenatal monitoring and research. No placental abnormalities were detected in the cases of trisomy 13, despite such abnormalities being commonly associated with this condition [27].
Increased maternal age is a known risk factor for chromosomal aneuploidies, including trisomy 13 [28,29]. In this study, the mean maternal age for cases with Patau syndrome was 28.29 years. Only one case involved a maternal age over 35 years, suggesting that while maternal age is a risk factor, trisomy 13 can occur in younger mothers as well.
Paternal age has been linked to an increased risk of offspring inheriting certain disorders [30], including several genetic diseases [31,32]. However, in our study, which included two cases of paternal age over 50, only one aneuploidy was identified. Due to the small sample size, we could not establish a strong association between fathers over 50 and CLPs. This finding aligns with a recent study that reported a positive association between advanced paternal age and Down syndrome, while finding a negative association with CL with or without CP [33].
In a large cohort study, chromosomal abnormalities were detected in 62 out of 168 cases with CLP [17], with the most common being trisomy 13, followed by trisomy 18. Other chromosomal abnormalities included Cri-du-chat syndrome, trisomy 21, trisomy 14, ectrodactyly–ectodermal dysplasia–clefting (EEC), Turner syndrome, and Klinefelter syndrome [17].
With new advances in genetic testing, around 500 syndromes associated with CLPs have been identified [34]. Van der Woude syndrome is the most common genetic syndrome associated with CPLs [35]. Other syndromes with clefting as a significant feature include ectrodactyly–ectodermal dysplasia–clefting syndrome [36], blepharocheilodontic syndrome [37], and Patau syndrome [38].
Research since the 2000s has identified numerous genetic syndromes associated with CLPs: Edwards syndrome [39], Stickler syndrome [40], Holzgreve syndrome, Marfan syndrome, myotonic dystrophy, Klippel-Feil syndrome, Potter sequence [41], Down syndrome [42,43], Ellis-van Creveld syndrome [44], Hartsfield syndrome [45], and others.
Comprehensive prenatal genetic tests have become an essential part of prenatal screening and diagnosis in cases where congenital anomalies are present. Screening tests are conducted from the mother’s blood sample and diagnostic tests involve invasively obtaining fetal tissue via chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis and have over 99.9 percent accuracy [46]. Traditionally, this testing has been performed through fluorescence in situ hybridization, karyotyping, or chromosomal microarray analysis. New methods, such as genomic hybridization, have been developed with similar accuracy [47]. However, karyotype may still be the most efficient and cost-effective method in certain clinical scenarios where aneuploidy is suspected [48].
Amniocentesis is commonly used in Romania to obtain amniotic fluid for prenatal diagnosis. While highly valuable for detecting chromosomal abnormalities, it is crucial to consider the associated risks, particularly the risk of miscarriage.
This risk is relatively low [49,50], but when counseling parents and obtaining their consent for amniocentesis it is a significant issue that must be discussed as a procedure-related complication.
Recent review studies have demonstrated that the risks associated with amniocentesis, particularly when used for karyotyping, are low [51,52], due to advances in ultrasound-guided techniques, even when performed later in pregnancy, after 24 weeks [53,54,55].
Diagnostic genetic test options include karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, chromosomal microarray, methylation studies, targeted testing, targeted gene panels, exome sequencing, and genome sequencing. The indication for a particular test depends on the findings from prenatal imaging, the results of genetic screening tests, and family history analysis. In our study, karyotyping was indicated due to its high accuracy and the suspicion of aneuploidy. This method facilitated the precise identification of chromosomal abnormalities linked to CLPs, offering critical data for genetic counseling and enabling timely, well-informed decisions on pregnancy management.
The survival rate for individuals with CLP varies significantly depending on whether the condition is isolated or associated with genetic or chromosomal syndromes. According to Goldrick et al., survival rates are higher in cases of isolated CLP, while the prognosis is poorer for CLP cases linked to chromosomal abnormalities [56]. Following genetic counseling, patients often choose to terminate pregnancies when CLP is associated with severe fetal chromosomal abnormalities. In this context, 15 women opted for pregnancy termination after prenatal ultrasound detected multiple and severe congenital malformations, whether isolated or in combination with severe chromosomal abnormalities. Ethical considerations play a crucial role in these decisions, reflecting the complex interplay between medical information, familial impact, and patient autonomy in prenatal care.
All cases of non-syndromic CLP in this study are non-familial and occur as isolated congenital anomalies. These findings are confirmed by different studies [57] and have a multifactorial etiology involving both genetic and environmental factors.
The etiology of non-syndromic CLP remains largely unknown, though mutations in candidate genes have been identified in a small proportion of cases based on a review of research from 2012 [58]. However, newer research has identified pathogenic gene variants in the etiology of CLP [59,60].
Furthermore, recent research indicated that subjects with CLP had the highest percentage of positive family history and that the condition predominantly affects male subjects [61,62]. Similarly, in our study clefts were more frequent in male than female fetuses.
Increased maternal age could not be correlated with syndromic cases in our study. The association between CLPs and maternal age remains controversial [63]. A meta-analysis indicated no correlation between maternal age and CLPs [64], while other studies have suggested the opposite [65,66,67]. In our study, the highest syndromic cases were in the 20–29 age group.
The average weeks of pregnancy at the time of diagnosis for each age group indicate that younger mothers tend to receive later diagnoses, while older mothers are diagnosed earlier on average. This discrepancy may be attributed to advanced maternal age being a risk factor for pregnancy complications, fetal aneuploidy, and genetic disorders [68], leading to more frequent and earlier prenatal screenings for older mothers.
Understanding the relative risk of CLP based on genetic background and environmental factors including nutrition, smoking, alcohol, medications, and chemicals, will be invaluable for genetic counseling and the development of future preventive measures [69].
Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that associated anomalies are common among pregnancies with CLP, highlighting the importance of genetic analysis. The search for additional malformations in the case of CLP and underlying genetic conditions is essential.
Early evaluation with genetic testing and management is recommended for families affected by oral clefts to help manage the emotional and psychological stress associated with this condition [8]. Counseling is a crucial component of family support.
Genetic analysis is a crucial component of prenatal care for these cases. This comprehensive approach—ultrasound scans with 3D imaging reconstruction, fetal karyotype analysis, and pedigree analysis—ensures thorough assessment and accurate diagnosis.

5. Suggestions for Future Research

Future research should prioritize evaluating the comparative effectiveness of advanced non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) against traditional invasive diagnostic methodologies in the early detection of cleft lip and palate (CLP). Such comparative analysis is crucial for optimizing prenatal screening protocols and improving clinical outcomes.
The potential role of paternal age in the incidence of CLP is another important area for further research. Future studies should aim to include larger and more diverse populations to explore the genetic mutations that could be associated with increased paternal age.
Additionally, exploring the interplay between genetic susceptibilities and environmental factors in the etiology of CLP is essential for identifying targeted preventative interventions.
Furthermore, there is a significant need for longitudinal cohort studies to monitor the long-term phenotypic developments and psychosocial consequences associated with CLP. These studies will enhance our understanding of the condition’s progression and facilitate management strategies and patient support systems.
This comprehensive approach will significantly contribute to the advancement of personalized medicine and improve prognostic outcomes for affected individuals.

6. Limitation of the Study

The current research is subject to several limitations. Specifically, in this retrospective study, the limitations include the small number of cases and the reliance on karyotyping as the sole genetic test. Karyotyping was chosen due to its accuracy and cost-effectiveness. Non-invasive genetic screening tests are more expensive than karyotyping.

7. Conclusions

Detecting CLPs during prenatal ultrasound screening is essential for informed decision-making. High-precision ultrasound and 3D imaging reconstruction allow early detection.
The presence of additional malformations is an essential parameter in the decision to perform an invasive genetic test, which establishes the diagnosis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.B. and C.-C.A.; methodology, O.B.; software, Ş.-D.A. and M.G.B.; validation, O.B., C.F.B.-A., C.-V.P. and C.M.D.; formal analysis, L.M.D., Ş.-D.A. and M.G.B.; investigation, A.D.B., O.B., C.-V.P., A.-M.B. and C.-C.A.; resources, C.-C.A., O.B., C.M.D., L.M.D. and C.F.B.-A.; data curation, Ş.-D.A. and M.G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-C.A., C.M.D., L.M.D. and C.F.B.-A.; writing—review and editing, A.D.B., C.M.D., L.M.D., A.-M.B. and C.F.B.-A.; visualization, Ş.-D.A. and M.G.B.; supervision, A.D.B. and C.-C.A.; project administration, C.F.B.-A.; funding acquisition, A.D.B., C.-C.A., O.B., C.M.D., L.M.D., C.F.B.-A., C.-V.P. and A.-M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Alco San Medical Center in Bucharest, Romania (protocol code 48/2021, 12 April 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Szyszka-Sommerfeld, L.; Woźniak, K.; Matthews-Brzozowska, T.; Kawala, B.; Mikulewicz, M.; Machoy, M. The electrical activity of the masticatory muscles in children with cleft lip and palate. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2018, 28, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Albu, C.C.; Vasilache, A.; Stanciu, I.A.; Suciu, I.; Teodorescu, E.; Dragomirescu, A.O.; Albu, S.D.; Nada, E.S.; Albu, D.F.; Ionescu, E. De novo apparently balanced translocation with a novel abnormal phenotype: Review and case presentation. Rom. J. Leg. Med. 2021, 29, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mossey, P.A.; Little, J.; Munger, R.G.; Dixon, M.J.; Shaw, W.C. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet 2009, 374, 1773–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Geneser, M.K.; Veerasathpurush, A. Cleft lip and palate. In Pediatric Dentistry, 6th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 77–87. [Google Scholar]
  5. Salari, N.; Darvishi, N.; Heydari, M.; Bokaee, S.; Darvishi, F.; Mohammadi, M. Global prevalence of cleft palate, cleft lip and cleft palate and lip: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 123, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lan, Y.; Jiang, R. Mouse models in palate development and orofacial cleft research: Understanding the crucial role and regulation of epithelial integrity in facial and palate morphogenesis. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2022, 148, 13–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. 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]
  8. Babai, A.; Irving, M. Orofacial Clefts: Genetics of Cleft Lip and Palate. Genes 2023, 14, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Clementi, M.; Tenconi, R.; Bianchi, F.; Stoll, C. Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip with or without cleft palate and cleft palate by ultrasound: Experience from 20 European registries. EUROSCAN study group. Prenat. Diagn. 2000, 20, 870–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Salazar, T.A.; Rincón-Guio, C.; López, N.L.; Cáceres, J.; Charry, J.D. First trimester sonographic diagnosis of orofacial defects. Review of literature. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2020, 33, 3200–3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zheng, W.; Li, B.; Zou, Y.; Lou, F. The prenatal diagnosis and classification of cleft palate: The role and value of magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 5600–5606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Divya, K.; Iyapparaja, P.; Raghavan, A.; Diwakar, M.P. Accuracy of Prenatal Ultrasound Scans for Screening Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review. J. Med. Ultrasound 2022, 30, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Requeijo, M.J.R.; Penoni, K.Z.; Ruano, R.; Bunduki, V.; Lopes, M.A.B.; Francisco, R.P.V.; Zugaib, M. Facial cleft diagnosed prenatally: Epidemiological, ultrasound and postnatal aspects. Rev. Ibero-Am. Humanidades Ciênc. Educ. 2024, 10, 650–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jenkins, M.; Seasely, A.R.; Subramaniam, A. Prenatal genetic testing 2: Diagnostic tests. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2022, 34, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Albu, C.; Cilievici, S.E.; Albu, D.; Albu, S.; Patrascu, A.; Goganau, A.M. Impact of Maternal Serum Screening in Early Prenatal Diagnosis and Management of Congenital Anomalies. Rev. Chim. 2019, 70, 1534–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jabaz, D.; Jenkins, S.M. Sonography 2nd Trimester Assessment, Protocols, and Interpretation. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570574/ (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  17. Vibert, F.; Schmidt, G.; Löffler, K.; Gasiorek-Wiens, A.; Henrich, W.; Verlohren, S. Accuracy of prenatal detection of facial clefts and relation between facial clefts, additional malformations and chromosomal abnormalities: A large referral-center cohort. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2024, 309, 1971–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Baeza-Pagador, A.; Tejero-Martínez, A.; Salom-Alonso, L.; Camañes-Gonzalvo, S.; García-Sanz, V.; Paredes-Gallardo, V. Diagnostic Methods for the Prenatal Detection of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maarse, W.; Pistorius, L.R.; Van Eeten, W.K.; Breugem, C.C.; Kon, M.; Van den Boogaard, M.J.; Mink van Der Molen, A.B. Prenatal ultrasound screening for orofacial clefts. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011, 38, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nicot, R.; Rotten, D.; Opdenakker, Y.; Kverneland, B.; Ferri, J.; Couly, G.; Levaillant, J.M. Fetal dental panorama on three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of cleft lip and palate and other facial anomalies. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 1561–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shi, Z.; Wen, H.; Leng, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Luo, D.; Chen, Z.; Qin, Y.; Liang, M.; Tan, Y.; et al. Cleft palate in fetuses: Feasibility of early diagnosis by Crystal and Realistic Vue rendering 3D ultrasound technology in the first trimester. Front. Pediatr. 2023, 11, 1199965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shao, X.; Liang, L.; Liu, Y.; Yan, J.; Ma, P. Comparison of diagnostic values between 2D three-section ultrasound and 3D tomographic ultrasound imaging for fetal cleft palate at 11–13+6 weeks. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2024, 17, 100808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Văduva, C.C.; Constantinescu, C.; Ţenovici, M.; Văduva, A.R.; Niculescu, M.; DiŢescu, D.; Albu, C.C.; Albu, D.F. Delayed interval delivery in twin pregnancy—Case reports. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2016, 57, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Calzolari, E.; Pierini, A.; Astolfi, G.; Bianchi, F.; Neville, A.J.; Rivieri, F. Associated anomalies in multi-malformed infants with cleft lip and palate: An epidemiologic study of nearly 6 million births in 23 EUROCAT registries. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2007, 143A, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sekhon, P.S.; Ethunandan, M.; Markus, A.F.; Krishnan, G.; Rao, C.B. Congenital anomalies associated with cleft lip and palate-an analysis of 1623 consecutive patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 2011, 48, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Satgé, D.; Nishi, M.; Sirvent, N.; Vekemans, M.; Chenard, M.P.; Barnes, A. A tumor profile in Patau syndrome (trisomy 13). Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2017, 173, 2088–2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, C.P. Placental abnormalities and preeclampsia in trisomy 13 pregnancies. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 48, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hook, E.B. Rates of 47, +13 and 46 translocation D/13 Patau syndrome in live births and comparison with rates in fetal deaths and at amniocentesis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1980, 32, 849–858. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cuckle, H.; Morris, J. Maternal age in the epidemiology of common autosomal trisomies. Prenat. Diagn. 2021, 41, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaltsas, A.; Moustakli, E.; Zikopoulos, A.; Georgiou, I.; Dimitriadis, F.; Symeonidis, E.N.; Markou, E.; Michaelidis, T.M.; Tien, D.M.B.; Giannakis, I.; et al. Impact of Advanced Paternal Age on Fertility and Risks of Genetic Disorders in Offspring. Genes 2023, 14, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Peng, M.; Xu, J.; Fan, Z.; Liu, C.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, H. Effect of paternal age on offspring birth defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging 2020, 12, 25373–25394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chan, P.T.K.; Robaire, B. Advanced Paternal Age and Future Generations. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 897101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hamood, N. Paternal Ages and Genetic Diseases and Congenital Anomalies. Pegasus Rev. UCF Undergrad. Res. J. 2022, 15, 1. Available online: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/urj/vol15/iss1/1 (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  34. Venkatesh, R. Syndromes and anomalies associated with cleft. Indian J. Plast. Surg. 2009, 42, S51–S55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schutte, B.C.; Saal, H.M.; Goudy, S.; Leslie, E.J. IRF6-Related Disorders. In GeneReviews®; University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  36. Garrocho-Rangel, A.; Serrano-Aguilar, G.; Hernández-Molinar, Y.; Aranda-Romo, S.; Alejandri-Gamboa, V.; Pozos-Guillén, A. Oral management of children/adolescents with ectrodactyly-ectodermal dysplasia-clefting (EEC) syndrome: A scoping review. Spec. Care. Dentist. 2023, 43, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Awadh, W.; Kiukkonen, A.; Nieminen, P.; Arte, S.; Hurmerinta, K.; Rice, D.P. Blepharocheilodontic (BCD) syndrome: New insights on craniofacial and dental features. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2017, 173, 905–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kroes, I.; Janssens, S.; Defoort, P. Ultrasound features in trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) and trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) in a consecutive series of 47 cases. Facts Views Vis. Obgyn. 2014, 6, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Rosa, R.F.; Rosa, R.C.; Lorenzen, M.B.; Zen, P.R.; Graziadio, C.; Paskulin, G.A. Craniofacial abnormalities among patients with Edwards Syndrome. Rev. Paul Pediatr. 2013, 31, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. O’Brien, D.A.; Phillips, A.J. Stickler Syndrome. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2021, 83, 330–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lace, B.; Barkane, B.; Akota, I. The most common genetic syndromes and associated anomalies in Latvian patients with cleft lip with or without palate. Stomatologija 2006, 8, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, J.; Feng, D.; He, S.; Yang, H.; Su, Z.; Ye, H. Association of MTHFR 677C > T gene polymorphism with neonatal defects: A meta-analysis of 81444 subjects. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022, 42, 1811–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Albu, C.C.; Albu, D.; Albu, S.; Patrascu, A.; Musat, A.; Goganau, A.M. Early Prenatal Diagnosis of an Extremely Rare Association of Down Syndrome and Transposition of the Great Vessels. Rev. Chim. 2019, 70, 2574–2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. León-Madero, L.F.; Fregoso-Ron, C.H.; De León-Carbajal, J.C.; Valdés-Miranda, J.M. Mexican patient with Ellis-van Creveld syndrome and cleft palate: Importance of functional hemizygosity and phenotype expansion. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 2024, 12, e2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rich, M.; Schroeder, B.; Manning, C.; Abbott, M.A. Prenatal diagnosis of Hartsfield syndrome with a novel genetic variant. Prenat. Diagn. 2023, 43, 1671–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Genetic Alliance; The New York-Mid-Atlantic Consortium for Genetic and Newborn Screening Services. Understanding Genetics: A New York, Mid-Atlantic Guide for Patients and Health Professionals; Genetic Alliance: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Appendix H, Prenatal Screening and Testing. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115544/ (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  47. Saldarriaga, W.; García-Perdomo, H.A.; Arango-Pineda, J.; Fonseca, J. Karyotype versus genomic hybridization for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities: A metaanalysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 212, e1–e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sparks, T.N.; Dugoff, L. How to choose a test for prenatal genetic diagnosis: A practical overview. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023, 228, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kong, C.W.; Leung, T.N.; Leung, T.Y.; Chan, L.W.; Sahota, D.S.; Fung, T.Y.; Lau, T.K. Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat. Diagn. 2006, 26, 925–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Salomon, L.J.; Sotiriadis, A.; Wulff, C.B.; Odibo, A.; Akolekar, R. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: Systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 54, 442–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Di Mascio, D.; Khalil, A.; Rizzo, G.; Buca, D.; Liberati, M.; Martellucci, C.A.; Flacco, M.E.; Manzoli, L.; D’Antonio, F. Risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 56, 647–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nassr, A.A.; Hessami, K.; D’Alberti, E.; Giancotti, A.; Meshinchiasl, N.; Evans, M.I.; Di Mascio, D.; Shamshirsaz, A.A. Obstetrical outcomes following amniocentesis performed after 24weeks of gestation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 2023, 43, 1425–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Steinfort, K.; Van Houtven, E.; Jacquemyn, Y.; Blaumeiser, B.; Loquet, P. Difference in Procedure-Related Risk of Miscarriage between Early and Mid-Trimester Amniocentesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ciortea, R.; Malutan, A.M.; Bucuri, C.E.; Berceanu, C.; Rada, M.P.; Ormindean, C.M.; Mihu, D. Amniocentesis—When It Is Clear That It Is Not Clear. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zemet, R.; Maktabi, M.A.; Tinfow, A.; Giordano, J.L.; Heisler, T.M.; Yan, Q.; Plaschkes, R.; Stokes, J.; Walsh, J.M.; Corcoran, S.; et al. Amniocentesis in pregnancies at or beyond 24 weeks: An international multicenter study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024, S0002-9378, 00693–00698, Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mc Goldrick, N.; Revie, G.; Groisman, B.; Hurtado-Villa, P.; Sipek, A.; Khoshnood, B.; Rissmann, A.; Dastgiri, S.; Landau, D.; Tagliabue, G.; et al. A multi-program analysis of cleft lip with cleft palate prevalence and mortality using data from 22 International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research programs, 1974–2014. Birth Defects Res. 2023, 115, 980–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nasreddine, G.; El Hajj, J.; Ghassibe-Sabbagh, M. Orofacial clefts embryology, classification, epidemiology, and genetics. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2021, 787, 108373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kohli, S.S.; Kohli, V.S. A comprehensive review of the genetic basis of cleft lip and palate. J. Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2012, 16, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Demeer, B.; Revencu, N.; Helaers, R.; Gbaguidi, C.; Dakpe, S.; François, G.; Devauchelle, B.; Bayet, B.; Vikkula, M. Likely Pathogenic Variants in One Third of Non-Syndromic Discontinuous Cleft Lip and Palate Patients. Genes 2019, 10, 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mukhopadhyay, N.; Feingold, E.; Moreno-Uribe, L.; Wehby, G.; Valencia-Ramirez, L.C.; Restrepo Muñeton, C.P.; Padilla, C.; Deleyiannis, F.; Christensen, K.; Poletta, F.A.; et al. Genome-wide association study of multiethnic nonsyndromic orofacial cleft families identifies novel loci specific to family and phenotypic subtypes. Genet. Epidemiol. 2022, 46, 182–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Silva, C.M.; Pereira, M.C.M.; Queiroz, T.B.; Neves, L.T.D. Family history in non-syndromic orofacial clefts: Is there a pattern? Oral Dis. 2022, 28, 2194–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bartzela, T.; Theuerkauf, B.; Reichardt, E.; Spielmann, M.; Opitz, C. Clinical characterization of 266 patients and family members with cleft lip and/or palate with associated malformations and syndromes. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 5531–5540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Santoro, M.; Mezzasalma, L.; Coi, A.; Pierini, A. Orofacial Clefts and Maternal Risk Factors: A Population-Based Case—Control Study. Children 2024, 11, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vieira, A.R.; Orioli, I.M.; Murray, J.C. Maternal age and oral clefts: A reappraisal. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2002, 94, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Bille, C.; Skytthe, A.; Vach, W.; Knudsen, L.B.; Andersen, A.M.; Murray, J.C.; Christensen, K. Parent’s age and the risk of oral clefts. Epidemiology 2005, 16, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Hermann, N.V.; Darvann, T.A.; Munch, A.; Kreiborg, S. Parental age in relation to the severity of cleft lip and/or palate. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2018, 21, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Alrbata, R.H.; Almaaiteh, H.Y.; Albdour, M.N.; Alshammout, R.W. A Retrospective Cohort Study to Evaluate the Association Between Types of Nonsyndromic Oral Clefts and a Child’s Gender and Maternal Age. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2021, 11, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Mikwar, M.; MacFarlane, A.J.; Marchetti, F. Mechanisms of oocyte aneuploidy associated with advanced maternal age. Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res. 2020, 785, 108320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Albu, C.-C.; Bencze, M.-A.; Dragomirescu, A.-O.; Suciu, I.; Tănase, M.; Albu, Ş.-D.; Russu, E.-A.; Ionescu, E. Folic Acid and Its Role in Oral Health: A Narrative Review. Processes 2023, 11, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 04804 g001
Figure 1. Mean weeks of pregnancy at diagnosis according to age.
Figure 1. Mean weeks of pregnancy at diagnosis according to age.
Jcm 13 04804 g001
Jcm 13 04804 g002
Figure 2. Unilateral cleft labial diagnosed prenatally at 19 weeks of pregnancy and confirmed at 23 weeks, isolated, sporadic, syndrome, non-hereditary case, Patau syndrome (trisomy 13): 47, XY, +13. (a) Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of fetal viscerocranium indicated unilateral left cheiloschisis, prenatally diagnosed at 19 w and confirmed at 23 w of pregnancy; (b) Fetal karyotype from amniotic cell culture: 47, XY, +13.
Figure 2. Unilateral cleft labial diagnosed prenatally at 19 weeks of pregnancy and confirmed at 23 weeks, isolated, sporadic, syndrome, non-hereditary case, Patau syndrome (trisomy 13): 47, XY, +13. (a) Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of fetal viscerocranium indicated unilateral left cheiloschisis, prenatally diagnosed at 19 w and confirmed at 23 w of pregnancy; (b) Fetal karyotype from amniotic cell culture: 47, XY, +13.
Jcm 13 04804 g002
Jcm 13 04804 g003
Figure 3. Unilateral cleft labial diagnosed prenatally at 23 weeks of pregnancy, isolated case, sporadic, non-syndromic, non-hereditary, confirmed postnatally. (a) Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of fetal profile indicated unilateral cheiloschisis, prenatally diagnosed at 23 weeks of pregnancy; (b) Fetal karyotype from amniotic cell culture: 46, XX.
Figure 3. Unilateral cleft labial diagnosed prenatally at 23 weeks of pregnancy, isolated case, sporadic, non-syndromic, non-hereditary, confirmed postnatally. (a) Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of fetal profile indicated unilateral cheiloschisis, prenatally diagnosed at 23 weeks of pregnancy; (b) Fetal karyotype from amniotic cell culture: 46, XX.
Jcm 13 04804 g003
Table 1. Summative table with subjects and data analyses.
Table 1. Summative table with subjects and data analyses.
No.Maternal AgePaternal AgeHistoryUltrasonographyCLPWeeks of PregnancyFetal KaryotypeCLP Heterogenity Linked to Fetal Karyotype and Pedigree AnalysisGenetic Component of CLPsObservation
1.2426first pregnancyfemale monofetal pregnancyUCLR31.346, XXisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casesecond opinion
confirmed postnatally
2.2630first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy
intrauterine growth restriction, left equinovarus		UCLPL23.146 XY, t(7;16) (p14;p11.)isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casetranslocation
syndrome		termination of pregnancy,
confirmed by fetal autopsy
3.3151first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, nuchal translucency, spina bifida, and congenital heart anomaly with moderate regurgitation of the tricuspid valveUCPLR1746, XYisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casetermination of pregnancy,
confirmed by fetal autopsy
4.2632first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, oligohydramnios, hypoplastic nasal bone, bilateral polycystic kidney and intrauterine growth restrictionBCLP2046, XY/47, XY, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome,
mosaic trisomy 13		termination of pregnancy,
confirmed by fetal autopsy
5.3137second pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, ventricular septal defectUCLPR2047, XY, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome, trisomy 13termination of pregnancy,
confirmed by fetal autopsy
6.2927first pregnancyfemale monofetal pregnancy, ocular hypertelorism, polycystic kidney and polydactylyUCLPR2546, XX/47, XX, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic,
non-hereditary case		Patau syndrome, mosaic trisomy 13termination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
7.3945first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, hypoplastic nasal bone, agenesis of the corpus callosum and ventriculomegalyUCLPL1946, XYisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casetermination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
8.3134first pregnancyfemale monofetalUCLR31.646, XXisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casesecond opinion,
confirmed postnatally
9.2730second pregnancyfemale monofetal pregnancy, microcephalyUCLPR1946, XX/47, XX, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome, mosaic trisomy 13termination of pregnancy, confirmed by fetal autopsy
10.2933second pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, equinovarusUCLPR2046, XYisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casetermination of pregnancy, confirmed by fetal autopsy
11.3845first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, lax nuchal cordUCLL2046, XYisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casetermination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
12.2430first pregnancyfemale monofetal pregnancy, moderate gastric distensionUCLL2346, XXisolated, sporadic,
non-hereditary case		non-syndromic casesecond opinion,
confirmed postnatally
13.3642first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, ventriculomegalyUCLPR1847, XY, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome, trisomy 13termination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
14.2632first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, ventriculomegalyUCLPL1947, XY, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome, trisomy 13termination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
15.4150second pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, retrognathia, moderate micrognathia, hemi ventriculomegaly, suspicion of lissencephalyUCLPR1846, XY/47, XY, +18isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary caseEdwards syndrome, mosaic trisomy 18termination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
16.2840first pregnancyfemale monofetal pregnancy, coarctation of the aortaUCLPL1746, XXisolated, sporadic, non-hereditary casenon-syndromic casetermination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
172331first pregnancymale monofetal pregnancy, Spalding sign, double cranial contour, developmental arrestUCLPL1947, XY, +13isolated, sporadic, syndromic, non-hereditary casePatau syndrome, trisomy 13termination of pregnancy
confirmed by fetal autopsy
Unilateral cleft lip right (UCLR), Cleft palate with unilateral cleft lip left (UCLPL), Cleft palate with unilateral cleft lip right (UCLPR), Bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), Unilateral cleft lip left (UCLL).
Table 2. The association between CLPs and other anomalies.
Table 2. The association between CLPs and other anomalies.
Cases
without Associated Anomalies		Bone
Anomalies		Brain
Anomalies		Cardio-Vascular AnomaliesCranio-Facial Bones AnomaliesDigestive AnomaliesLimb AnomaliesOcular
Anomalies		Renal AnomaliesIntrauterine Growth
Restriction		Other
2 (11.76%)1 (5.88%)3 (17.65%)7 (41.18%)4 (23.53%)1 (5.88%)3 (17.65%)1 (5.88%)2 (11.76%)3 (17.65%)3 (17.57%)
spina bifidaagenesis of the corpus callosum,
lissencephaly,
microcephaly		coarctation of the aorta,
regurgitation of the tricuspid valve,
ventriculomegaly,
ventricular septal defect		hypoplastic nasal bone,
retrognathia with micrognathia,
Spalding sign		moderate gastric distensionequinovarus,
polydactyly		 hypertelorismpolycystic kidney lax nuchal cord,
oligohydramnios,
nuchal translucency
Table 3. Classification of CLPs.
Table 3. Classification of CLPs.
Type of CLPsNon-Syndromic CasesSyndromic CasesTotal
Unilateral cleft lip (UCL)4 (23.52%)0 (0.00%)4 (23.52%)
Bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP)0 (0.00%)0 (0.00%)0 (0.00%)
Cleft palate (CP)0 (0.00%)0 (0.00%)0 (0.00%)
Cleft palate with unilateral cleft lip (UCLP)4 (23.52%)8 (47.06%)12 (70.59%)
Bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) 0 (0.00%)1 (5.88%)1 (5.88%)
Total8 (47.06%)9 (52.94%)17 (100%)
Table 4. Association between maternal age and CLPs.
Table 4. Association between maternal age and CLPs.
Maternal Age20–2930–34Over 35
Non-syndromic cases422
Syndromic cases 612
Total1034
Table 5. Association between paternal age and CLPs.
Table 5. Association between paternal age and CLPs.
Paternal Age<4040–4950–59
Non-syndromic cases431
Syndromic cases 711
Total1142
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

Brăila, A.D.; Damian, C.M.; Albu, C.-C.; Botoacă, O.; Dȋră, L.M.; Albu, Ş.-D.; Brăila, M.G.; Bănățeanu, A.-M.; Poalelungi, C.-V.; Bogdan-Andreescu, C.F. Prenatal Diagnosis of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4804. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164804

AMA Style

Brăila AD, Damian CM, Albu C-C, Botoacă O, Dȋră LM, Albu Ş-D, Brăila MG, Bănățeanu A-M, Poalelungi C-V, Bogdan-Andreescu CF. Prenatal Diagnosis of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(16):4804. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164804

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brăila, Anca Daniela, Constantin Marian Damian, Cristina-Crenguţa Albu, Oana Botoacă, Laurențiu Mihai Dȋră, Ştefan-Dimitrie Albu, Matei Georgian Brăila, Andreea-Mariana Bănățeanu, Cristian-Viorel Poalelungi, and Claudia Florina Bogdan-Andreescu. 2024. "Prenatal Diagnosis of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 16: 4804. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164804

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