Eman A Alkofide1. 1. Orthodontic Division, King Saud University, College of Dentistry, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ealkofide@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate sella turcica morphology, calculate its size in cleft subjects, and compare it with noncleft subjects. MATERIALS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 95 cleft and 190 noncleft individuals. Radiographs were divided into two groups by age: 11 to 14 years of age, 15 years and above. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The morphology of the sella turcica was categorized into six shapes; whereas, the size of the sella turcica was measured in terms of length, depth, and diameter in millimeters. RESULTS: The sella turcica was abnormal in shape in the majority of cleft subjects when compared with noncleft subjects (p= .0000), more so in subjects with unilateral cleft lip and palate and bilateral cleft lip and palate (p= .0000, p= .020, respectively). Depth of sella turcica was smaller in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects (p= .037). A smaller sella turcica size (length, depth, diameter) was evident in cleft subjects as compared with noncleft subjects (p= .037, p= .004, p= .000, respectively). Age correlated positively with an increase in sella turcica size in both noncleft and cleft subjects (p= .000, p= .009, p= .000). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of cleft subjects displayed an abnormal appearance of sella turcica when compared with noncleft subjects. A smaller depth of sella turcica was associated with unilateral cleft lip and palate. The sella turcica was smaller in size in cleft subjects than in noncleft subjects. Sella turcica size increased with age in subjects with and without clefts.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate sella turcica morphology, calculate its size in cleft subjects, and compare it with noncleft subjects. MATERIALS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 95 cleft and 190 noncleft individuals. Radiographs were divided into two groups by age: 11 to 14 years of age, 15 years and above. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The morphology of the sella turcica was categorized into six shapes; whereas, the size of the sella turcica was measured in terms of length, depth, and diameter in millimeters. RESULTS: The sella turcica was abnormal in shape in the majority of cleft subjects when compared with noncleft subjects (p= .0000), more so in subjects with unilateral cleft lip and palate and bilateral cleft lip and palate (p= .0000, p= .020, respectively). Depth of sella turcica was smaller in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects (p= .037). A smaller sella turcica size (length, depth, diameter) was evident in cleft subjects as compared with noncleft subjects (p= .037, p= .004, p= .000, respectively). Age correlated positively with an increase in sella turcica size in both noncleft and cleft subjects (p= .000, p= .009, p= .000). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of cleft subjects displayed an abnormal appearance of sella turcica when compared with noncleft subjects. A smaller depth of sella turcica was associated with unilateral cleft lip and palate. The sella turcica was smaller in size in cleft subjects than in noncleft subjects. Sella turcica size increased with age in subjects with and without clefts.