Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the parental craniofacial morphology in orofacial clefting (OFC).

Design

Case-control posteroanterior cephalometric study.

Setting

The Department of Orthodontics, University of Dundee Dental School, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Participants

Ninety-two parents from a completely ascertained sample of 286 Scottish babies with nonsyndromic OFC and 43 comparison group volunteers from the University of Dundee Dental School.

Main Outcome Measures

A conventional cephalometric analysis was used to measure linear distances and their ratios, angles, and areas. Two-sample Student's t tests and a discriminant analysis were applied to the data, and the clinically important statistically significant variables were identified using an accepted protocol.

Results

Sixty-four linear distances, 10 ratios, 52 angles, and 7 areas statistically significantly differed between the parental and comparison groups (p < .01). Of these, 62 linear distances (22%), 9 ratios (45%), 41 angles (41%), and 6 areas (24%) were clinically important. Asymmetry was a feature of the results. Canonical variates analysis correctly classified 91.3% of the parental group and 90.6% of the comparison group using a series of 36 variables.

Conclusions

The parental craniofacial morphology in OFC differs significantly from the noncleft population. A larger superolateral face and smaller central midface and, in particular, a clinically significantly smaller maxillary width, in conjunction with skeletal asymmetry, characterize the parents of Scottish children with OFC. These features may be of morphogenetic importance in the etiopathogenesis of OFC in this ethnic group.

Keywords

orofacial clefting PA cephalogram PA cephalometric analysis parent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AlEmran

S.E.

Fatani

Hassanain

J.E.

Craniofacial variability in parents of children with cleft lip and cleft palate.

J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999; 23: 337–341.

Björk

Skieller

Growth in width of the maxilla studied by the implant method.

Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974; 8: 26–33.

Blanco

Chakraborty

Barton

S.A.

Carreno

Paredes

Jara

Palomino

Schull

W.J.

Evidence of a sex-dependent association between the MSX1 locus and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate in the Chilean population.

Hum Biol. 2001; 73: 81–89.

Ferguson

M.W.

A hole in the head.

Nat Genet. 2000; 24: 330–331.

Fitzpatrick

D.R.

Raine

P.A.

Boorman

J.G.

Facial clefts in the West of Scotland 1980-84: epidemiology and genetic diagnoses.

J Med Genet. 1994; 31: 126–129.

Fraser

F.C.

The genetics of cleft lip and palate.

Am J Hum Genet. 1970; 22: 336–352.

Fraser

F.C.

Pashayan

Relation of face shape to susceptibility to congenital cleft lip.

J Med Genet. 1970; 7: 112–117.

Gregg

Boyd

Richardson

The birth prevalence of cleft lip and palate in Northern Ireland from 1980-1990.

Br J Orthod. 1994; 21: 387–392.

Grummons

D.C.

Kappeyne

M.A.

A frontal asymmetry analysis.

J Clin Orthod. 1987; 21: 448–465.

10.

Hill

P.A.

The prevalence and severity of malocclusion and the need for orthodontic treatment in 9, 12 and 15 year old Glasgow schoolchildren.

Br J Orthod. 1992; 19: 87–96.

11.

Houston

W.J.

The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements.

Am J Orthod. 1983; 83: 382–389.

12.

Iseri

Solow

Changes in the width of the mandibular body from 6 to 22 years of age: an implant study.

Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22: 229–238.

13.

Jensen

B.L.

Kreiborg

Dahl

Fogh-Andersen

Cleft lip and palate in Denmark 1976–1981. Epidemiology, variability and early somatic development.

Cleft Palate J. 1988; 25: 258–269.

14.

Kaartinen

Voncken

J.W.

Shuler

Warburton

Heisterkamp

Groffen

Abnormal lung development and cleft palate in mice lacking TGF-beta 3 indicates defects of epithelial-mesenchymal interaction.

Nat Genet. 1995; 11: 415–421.

15.

Kurisu

K.K.

Niswander

J.D.

Johnston

M.C.

Mazaheri

Facial morphology as an indicator of genetic predisposition to cleft lip and palate.

Am J Hum Genet. 1974; 26: 702–714.

16.

Lewanda

A.F.

Jabs

E.W.

Genetics of craniofacial disorders.

Curr Opin Pediatr. 1994; 6: 690–697.

17.

Luffingham

J.K.

Campbell

M.C.

The need for orthodontic treatment. A pilot survey of 14 year old school children in Paisley, Scotland.

Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1974; 344–356.

18.

Marcus

L.F.

Traditional morphometrics. In: Rohlf

F.J.

Bookstein

F.L.

eds. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology; 1988: 77–122.

19.

McIntyre

G.T.

Mossey

P.A.

The craniofacial morphology of the parents of children with orofacial clefting: a systematic review of cephalometric studies.

J Orthod. 2002; 29: 23–29.

20.

Melsen

Palatal growth studied on human autopsy material. A histological microradiographic study.

Am J Orthod. 1975; 68: 42–54.

21.

Mitchell

L.E.

Transforming growth factor alpha locus and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate: a reappraisal.

Genet Epidemiol. 1997; 14: 231–240.

22.

Mitchell

L.E.

Murray

J.C.

O'Brien

Christensen

Evaluation of two putative susceptibility loci for oral clefts in the Danish population.

Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 153: 1007–1015.

23.

Mossey

P.A.

Arngrimsson

McColl

Vintiner

G.M.

Connor

J.M.

Prediction of liability to orofacial clefting using genetic and craniofacial data from parents.

J Med Genet. 1998; 35: 371–378.

24.

Mossey

P.A.

McColl

J.H.

Stirrups

D.R.

Differentiation between cleft lip with or without cleft palate and isolated cleft palate using parental cephalometric parameters.

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997; 34: 27–35.

25.

Newcombe

R.G.

Statistical applications in orthodontics. Part 1. Confidence intervals: an introduction.

J Orthod. 2000; 27: 270–272.

26.

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM. Johns Hopkins University. MIM no. 119530: 06022002. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/.

27.

Quintero

J.C.

Trosien

Hatcher

Kapila

Craniofacial imaging in orthodontics: historical perspective, current status, and future developments.

Angle Orthod. 1999; 69: 491–506.

28.

Raghavan

Sidhu

S.S.

Kharbanda

O.P.

Craniofacial pattern of parents of children having cleft lip and/or cleft palate anomaly.

Angle Orthod. 1994; 64: 137–144.

29.

Shibasaki

Ohtsuka

Hattori

Nukatsuka

A cephalometric study on craniofacial morphology of parents of children with cleft lip and palate [in Japanese].

J Jpn Cleft Palate Assoc. 1978; 3: 31–43.

30.

Snodell

S.F.

Nanda

R.S.

Currier

G.F.

A longitudinal cephalometric study of transverse and vertical craniofacial growth.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 471–483.

31.

Stirrups

D.R.

Guidance on presentation of cephalometry-based research studies. A personal perspective.

Br J Orthod. 1993; 20: 359–365.

32.

Suzuki

Takenoshita

Honda

Matsuura

Dentocraniofacial morphology in parents of children with cleft lip and/or palate.

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999; 36: 131–138.

33.

The 1981 Census. [on CD-Rom]. Oxford: Chadwyck-Healey; 1991.

34.

Vig

K.W.

Commentary [Ward R, Bixler D, Raywood ER. A study of cephalo-metric features in cleft lip and cleft palate families. I: Phenotypic heterogeneity and genetic predisposition in parents of sporadic cases.

Cleft Palate J. 1989; 26: 318–325.] Cleft Palate J. 1989;26: 325–326.

Posteroanterior Cephalometric Analysis of the Parental Craniofacial Morphology in Orofacial Clefting

Abstract

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References