Case report of de novo dup(18p)/del(18q) and r(18) mosaicism.

This is a report of a 27-year-old woman with an unusual de novo chromosomal abnormality. Mosaicism was identified in peripheral blood cells examined by standard G-bands by trypsin using Giemsa (GTG) analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with chromosome-18 region-specific probes, 46,XX,del(18)(pter --> q21.33:)[41], 46,XX,r(18)(::p11.21 --> q21.33::)[8], and 46,XX,der(18)(pter --> q21.33::p11.21 --> pter)[1]. On the other hand, the karyotype of periodontal ligament fibroblasts was nonmosaic, 46,XX, der(18)(pter --> q21.33::p11.21 --> pter)[50]. All cell lines appeared to be missing a portion of 18q (q21.33 --> qter). The pattern of the dup(18p)/del(18q) in the rod configuration raises the possibility of an inversion in chromosome 18 in one of the parents. However, no chromosomal anomaly was detected in either parent. The most probable explanation is that de novo rod and ring configurations arose simultaneously from an intrachromosomal exchange. The unique phenotype of this patient, which included primary hypothyroidism and primary hypogonadism, is discussed in relation to her karyotype.

Attitude of the canine in secondary bone-grafted and nongrafted patients with cleft lip and palate.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the eruption pattern of the cleft-side canine regarding its pre-eruption position relative to the cleft in bone-grafted (BG) and nongrafted (NonBG) patients with cleft lip and palate. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with cleft lip and palate (21 BG, 32 NonBG) were examined by panoramic radiography and posteroanterior cephalography taken before and after canine eruption. Subjects were categorized into BG, NonBG, and control groups. Canines at the pre-eruption stage were categorized as close to (group 1) or distant from (group 2) the cleft area. The canine angle and its change between the two stages were evaluated. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the initial canine angle of the BG and NonBG groups. Although canines in the BG group erupted without a significant change in angle, the canine angle increased significantly (p < .0001) in the NonBG and control groups. In group 1, a greater change in canine angle was noted in the NonBG (p < .05) and control (p < .01) groups than in the BG group. In group 2, no significant difference was noted among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In BG patients, a canine located near the cleft appears to erupt at the same angle as it had before grafting. However, in NonBG patients, it erupts more vertically, guided by cortical bone. For canines distant from the cleft area, there is no significant difference in the change in angulation between NonBG and BG patients.