Craniofacial morphological variability in orthodontic patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts: an approach using geometric morphometrics.

OBJECTIVES: Orofacial clefts are complex congenital anomalies that call for comprehensive treatment based on a thorough assessment of the anatomy. This study aims to examine the effect of cleft type on craniofacial morphology using geometric morphometrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated lateral cephalograms of 75 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate, 63 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, and 76 patients with isolated cleft palate. Generalized Procrustes analysis was performed on 16 hard tissue landmark coordinates. Shape variability was studied with principal component analysis. In a risk model approach, the first nine principal components (PC) were used to examine the effect of cleft type. RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in the mean shape between cleft types. The difference is greatest between bilateral cleft lip and palate and isolated cleft palate (distance of means 0.026, P = 0.0011). Differences between cleft types are most pronounced for PC4 and PC5 (P = 0.0001), which together account for 10% of the total shape variation. PC4 and PC5 show shape differences in the ratio of the upper to the lower face, the posterior mandibular height, and the mandibular angle. CONCLUSIONS: Cleft type has a statistically significant but weak effect on craniofacial morphological variability in patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts, mainly in the vertical dimension. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the effects of clefts on craniofacial morphology is essential to providing patients with treatment tailored to their specific needs. This study contributes to the literature particularly due to our risk model approach in lieu of a prediction model.

Cephalometric analyses for cleft patients: a statistical approach to compare the variables of Delaire's craniofacial analysis to Bergen analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Cephalometric analyses using lateral craniofacial radiographs are common diagnostic procedures for evaluating skeletal patterns. However, in patients with pronounced abnormalities like cleft lip and palate, standard cephalometric analyses and landmarks may not be suitable. This study aims to clarify whether the inclusion of landmarks less compromised by the cleft defect or located outside the cleft area results in a different cephalometric assessment of the viscerocranium. Delaire's whole-skull analysis and Bergen analysis were examined for similarities and underlying common observations. MATERIALS/METHODS: Based on the cephalometric evaluation of 217 patients with different types of non-syndromal cleft formation, Delaire and Bergen analysis were compared using three statistical methods: correlation analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis. Reproducibility was assessed by Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficients, mean absolute differences, and coefficients of variability. RESULTS: Although Delaire analysis and Bergen analysis are based on different concepts and landmarks, a majority of corresponding variables was found. Certain aspects of craniofacial base relation and craniospinal articulation are only assessed by Delaire analysis. All but one variable showed very good reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of landmarks less compromised by or located outside the cleft area does not result in variables that provide a different assessment of the viscerocranial area. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings contradict the concept of invalidity of landmarks compromised by the cleft defect or located within the affected cleft area. Within the scope of its viscerocranial field of view, Bergen analysis appears to be on a par with Delaire analysis in the diagnosis of cleft patients.