Francesca Mangione1,2,3, Laure Nguyen1,2, Nathalie Foumou4,5, Emmanuelle Bocquet4,5, Elisabeth Dursun6,7,8. 1. Faculty of Dental Surgery, Paris Descartes University, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120, Montrouge, France. 2. Albert Chenevier Hospital, 40 rue de Mesly, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France. 3. La bor atory Orofacial Pathologies EA 2 496, Imagery and Biotherapies, Dental School and Life imaging Platform (PIV), Paris Desc artes University, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120, Montrouge, France. 4. Faculty of Dentistry, Lille University, Place de Verdun, 59000, Lille, France. 5. Lille Regional University Hospital Center, 2 avenue Oscar Lambret, 59037, Lille Cedex, France. 6. Faculty of Dental Surgery, Paris Descartes University, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120, Montrouge, France. elisabethdursun@gmail.com. 7. Albert Chenevier Hospital, 40 rue de Mesly, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France. elisabethdursun@gmail.com. 8. Research Unit of Innovative Biomaterials and Interfaces EA 4462, Paris Descartes University, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120, Montrouge, France. elisabethdursun@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft patients is higher than that in general population. The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence of dental anomalies and their coexistence in French children with cleft and, then, to investigate the relation between the dental anomalies and the cleft type. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-four non-syndromic cleft patients (6-16 years old) from Lille Regional University and Mondor-Chenevier Hospitals (France) were included. Clefts were classified as right/left unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) and cleft palate (CP). Dental anomalies were investigated on panoramic radiographs and categorized as agenesis, supernumerary teeth, incisor rotations, impacted canines and shape anomalies. Prevalence and gender distribution of dental anomalies, mean number of affected teeth per patient, agenesis occurrence and location, and coexistence of dental anomalies were analysed by cleft type. RESULTS: 96.0% of patients presented at least one dental anomaly (agenesis 83.8%, incisor rotations 25.7%, shape anomalies 21.6%, impacted canines 18.9%, supernumerary teeth 8.1%). BCLP patients had a higher number of affected teeth, and left UCLP patients had a higher one compared to right UCLP patients. Distribution of inside (45.3%) and outside (54.7%) cleft region agenesis was similar. Adjacent (31.8%) and not adjacent (33.3%) combined dental anomalies were often encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Dental anomalies were localized inside as well as outside cleft region and were often associated with each other. BCLP patients were more affected. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Early radiographic evaluation allows a comprehensive diagnosis of inside and outside cleft region anomalies, required for the multidisciplinary dental treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of dental anomalies in cleft patients is higher than that in general population. The objectives of this study were to assess the prevalence of dental anomalies and their coexistence in French children with cleft and, then, to investigate the relation between the dental anomalies and the cleft type. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-four non-syndromic cleftpatients (6-16 years old) from Lille Regional University and Mondor-Chenevier Hospitals (France) were included. Clefts were classified as right/left unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) and cleft palate (CP). Dental anomalies were investigated on panoramic radiographs and categorized as agenesis, supernumerary teeth, incisor rotations, impacted canines and shape anomalies. Prevalence and gender distribution of dental anomalies, mean number of affected teeth per patient, agenesis occurrence and location, and coexistence of dental anomalies were analysed by cleft type. RESULTS: 96.0% of patients presented at least one dental anomaly (agenesis 83.8%, incisor rotations 25.7%, shape anomalies 21.6%, impacted canines 18.9%, supernumerary teeth 8.1%). BCLP patients had a higher number of affected teeth, and left UCLP patients had a higher one compared to right UCLP patients. Distribution of inside (45.3%) and outside (54.7%) cleft region agenesis was similar. Adjacent (31.8%) and not adjacent (33.3%) combined dental anomalies were often encountered. CONCLUSIONS:Dental anomalies were localized inside as well as outside cleft region and were often associated with each other. BCLP patients were more affected. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Early radiographic evaluation allows a comprehensive diagnosis of inside and outside cleft region anomalies, required for the multidisciplinary dental treatment.
Authors: José Rubén Herrera-Atoche; Nieves Aime Huerta-García; Mauricio Escoffié-Ramírez; Fernando Javier Aguilar-Pérez; Fernando Javier Aguilar-Ayala; Eduardo Andrés Lizarraga-Colomé; Gabriel Eduardo Colomé-Ruiz; Iván Daniel Zúñiga-Herrera Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 1.817