Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Incidental Findings in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Case-Control Study

Version 1 : Received: 4 July 2024 / Approved: 5 July 2024 / Online: 5 July 2024 (09:43:23 CEST)

How to cite: Pouliezou, I.; Xenou, A.; Mitsea, A.; Christoloukas, N.; Briamatou, K.; Konstantinidis, I.; Goulis, D. G.; Sifakakis, I. Incidental Findings in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Case-Control Study. Preprints 2024, 2024070509. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.0509.v1 Pouliezou, I.; Xenou, A.; Mitsea, A.; Christoloukas, N.; Briamatou, K.; Konstantinidis, I.; Goulis, D. G.; Sifakakis, I. Incidental Findings in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Case-Control Study. Preprints 2024, 2024070509. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.0509.v1

Abstract

Incidental findings (IFs) depicted in imaging tests during diagnostic evaluation of patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) can guide clinicians during treatment-planning procedures for effective, comprehensive cleft care. Evidence regarding IFs in different anatomical regions distant from the dentition are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of IFs in various anatomical areas between patients with non-syndromic CL/P and unaffected subjects. Orthopantomographs (OPT), lateral cephalometric (LC) radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of 120 subjects (case group: n = 40, 18 females, age 14.5 ± 5.0 years; control group: n = 80, 36 females, age 14.6 ± 4.9 years) were examined and IFs were assessed by four observers. Significantly higher prevalence of IFs (p < 0.001) was reported in the case group (97.5%) compared with the control group (62.5%). The most prevalent location of IFs in the case group was the maxilla (92.5%), followed by the nasal cavity (75.8%) and the mandible (63.2%), while in the control group, the highest rates of IFs occurred in the maxilla (43.8%), mandible (41.3%) and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) (14.7%). No gender-dependent pattern for IF occurrence was detected overall. Orofacial clefts may affect the mandible. However, the reported IFs were limited compared to those in the maxilla. In conclusion, individuals with CL/P are more likely to present with a range of IFs than their unaffected peers. Understanding the association between CL/P and IFs is critical for successful interdisciplinary treatment, raising awareness of the potential need for future dental care for cleft patients, and managing extra-dental aberrations. A systematic assessment of diagnostic records is required to eliminate the risk of overlooking clinically significant IFs.

Keywords

cleft lip and palate; orofacial clefts; incidental findings; panoramic radiograph; cephalometric radiograph; cone-beam computed tomography; orthodontics

Subject

Medicine and Pharmacology, Dentistry and Oral Surgery

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.