SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Evaluation of upper cervical vertebrae anomalies in patients with cleft lip and palate with cone beam computed tomography

Dudak damak yarıklı hastalarda üst servikal vertebra anomalilerinin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile değerlendirilmesi

Yeliz Güneş(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7136-4205
Mehmet Oğuz Borahan(MARMARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4193-2368
Pages
215–224
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: CVAs can be reliably evaluated using CBCT, and they may occur more frequently in patients with CLP.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare upper cervical vertebral anomalies (CVAs) between patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and healthy individuals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 100 CLP patients and 100 controls were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: CVAs can be reliably evaluated using CBCT, and they may occur more frequently in patients with CLP.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anomaliler · Yarık dudak damak · Servikal vertebra

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare upper cervical vertebral anomalies (CVAs) between patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and healthy individuals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 100 CLP patients and 100 controls were analyzed. CVAs including occipitalization, fusion, block fusion, cleft, os odontoideum, ossiculum terminale, and arcuate foramen, were evaluated. Results: CVAs were detected in 23% of CLP patients and 14% of controls. The most frequent anomaly was arcuate foramen (17% in CLP, 11% in controls), followed by vertebral cleft and fusion (each 3% in CLP). No cases of occipitalisation, block fusion, os odontoideum, or ossiculum terminale were observed. There were no significant differences between CLP and control groups or between unilateral and bilateral CLP (p>0.05). Conclusion: CVAs can be reliably evaluated using CBCT, and they may occur more frequently in patients with CLP.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı dudak damak yarığı (DDY) olan hastalar ile sağlıklı bireyler arasındaki üst servikal vertebra anomalilerini (SVA) konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 100 DDY’li hastanın ve 100 sağlıklı bireyin KIBT görüntüleri incelendi. SVA’lar oksipitalizasyon, füzyon, blok füzyon, yarık, os odontoideum, ossiculum terminale ve arkuat foramen olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: CVA oranı CLP hastalarında %23, kontrollerde %14 olarak bulundu. En sık görülen anomali arcuate foramen olup CLP grubunda %17, kontrol grubunda %11 oranındaydı. Vertebral cleft ve fusion her iki grupta da %3 oranında gözlendi. Occipitalisation, block fusion, os odontoideum ve ossiculum terminale saptanmadı. CLP ve kontrol grupları arasında, ayrıca unilateral ve bilateral CLP arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0,05). Sonuç: SVA CBCT ile güvenilir şekilde değerlendirilebilir ve CLP hastalarında daha sık görülebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güneş, Y., Borahan, M. O. (2025). Evaluation of upper cervical vertebrae anomalies in patients with cleft lip and palate with cone beam computed tomography. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.1762795

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773-85. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60695-4
  2. Shkoukani MA, Chen M, Vong A. Cleft lip - a comprehensive review. Front Pediatr. 2013;1:53. doi:10.3389/fped.2013.00053
  3. de Rezende Barbosa GL, Pimenta LA, Tyndall DA, Allareddy TV, Sousa Melo SL. Three-dimensional assessment of cervical vertebrae anomalies in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 2021;58(9):1102-1109. doi:10.1177/1055665620980226
  4. Batwa W, Almoammar K, Aljohar A, Alhussein A, Almujel S, Zawawi KH. The difference in cervical vertebral skeletal maturation between cleft lip/palate and non-cleft lip/palate orthodontic patients. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:5405376. doi:10.1155/2018/5405376
  5. Patcas R, Tausch D, Pandis N, et al. Illusions of fusions: assessing cervical vertebral fusion on lateral cephalograms, multidetector computed tomographs, and cone-beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(2):213-20. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.017
  6. Smahĕl Z, Skvarilová B. Length of the cervical spine as a factor in the etiology of cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30(3):274-278. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0274_lotcsa_2.3.co_2
  7. Yoshihara T, Suzuki J, Yawaka Y. Anomaly of cervical vertebrae found on orthodontic examination: 8-year-old boy with cleft lip and palate diagnosed with Klippel-Feil syndrome. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(5):975-80. doi:10.2319/110409-620.1
  8. Murray JC. Gene/environment causes of cleft lip and/or palate. Clin Genet. 2002;61(4):248-56. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2002.610402.x
  9. Ross RB, Lindsay WK. The cervical vertebrae as a factor in etiology of cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1965;36:273-281.
  10. Srivastava M, Aggarwal A, Batra P, Datana S, Kumar P, Macrcusson K. Association of cervical vertrebra anomalies with cleft lip and palate. Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies. 01/01 2014;1:43. doi:10.4103/2348-2125.126561
  11. Hwang SA, Lee JS, Hwang HS, Lee KM. Benefits of lateral cephalogram during landmark identification on posteroanterior cephalograms. Korean J Orthod. 2019;49(1):32-40. doi:10.4041/kjod.2019.49.1.32
  12. Gibelli D, Cappella A, Cerutti E, Spagnoli L, Dolci C, Sforza C. Prevalence of ponticulus posticus in a Northern Italian orthodontic population: a lateral cephalometric study. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2016;38:309-312.
  13. Lima MC, Franco EJ, Janson G, Carvalho IM, Santos CF, Capelozza AL. Prevalence of upper cervical vertebrae anomalies in patients with cleft lip and/or palate and noncleft patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(5):481-6. doi:10.1597/08-018.1
  14. Datana S, Bhalla A, Kumar P, Kumar Roy S, Londhe S. Comparative evaluation of prevalence of upper cervical vertebrae anomalies in cleft lip/palate patients: a retrospective study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;7(3):168-71. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1258
  15. Rajion ZA, Townsend GC, Netherway DJ, et al. A three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis of the cervical spine in unoperated infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):513-8. doi:10.1597/05-023
  16. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):707-30, v. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
  17. Venkatesh E, Elluru SV. Cone beam computed tomography: basics and applications in dentistry. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):S102-s121. doi:10.17096/jiufd.00289
  18. Ozer T, Uzun L, Numanoğlu V, Savranlar A, Hoşnuter M, Gündoğdu S. [3D-CT investigation of craniofacial and cervical spine anomalies in congenital muscular torticollis]. Tani Girisim Radyol. 2004;10(4):272-9. Konjenital müsküler tortikolliste kranyofasiyal ve servikal vertebra anomalilerinin 3B-BT ile incelenmesi.
  19. Farman AG, Escobar V. Radiographic appearance of the cervical vertebrae in normal and abnormal development. Br J Oral Surg. 1982;20(4):264-74. doi:10.1016/s0007-117x(82)80022-x
  20. Dogan E, Ergican GO, Dogan S. Evaluation of the cervical vertebral anomalies in patients with cleft lip and palate in Aegean region of Turkey. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(1(b)):215-218. doi:10.47391/jpma.213
  21. Berrocal C, Terrero-Pérez Á, Peralta-Mamani M, et al. Cervical vertebrae anomalies and cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019;48(8):20190085. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20190085
  22. Sideri M. Morphological anomalies of upper cervical vertebrae in children born with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate compared with children without cleft. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet. 2013;
  23. Uğar DA, Semb G. The prevalence of anomalies of the upper cervical vertebrae in subjects with cleft lip, cleft palate, or both. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Sep 2001;38(5):498-503. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0498_tpoaot_2.0.co_2
  24. Osborne GS, Pruzansky S, Koepp-Baker H. Upper cervical spine anomalies and osseous nasopharyngeal depth. J Speech Hear Res. 1971;14(1):14-22. doi:10.1044/jshr.1401.14
  25. Sandham A. Cervical vertebral anomalies in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(3):206-14.
  26. Hoenig JF, Schoener WF. Radiological survey of the cervical spine in cleft lip and palate. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1992;21(1):36-9. doi:10.1259/dmfr.21.1.1397450
  27. Molander B. Panoramic radiography in dental diagnostics. Swed Dent J Suppl. 1996;119:1-26.
  28. Karsten A, Sideri M, Spyropoulos M. Morphologic anomalies of upper cervical vertebrae in Swedish children born with nonsyndromic cleft Lip and/or palate compared to swedish children without cleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(6):751-758. doi:10.1177/1055665618808621
  29. Ajami S, Dehghanpoor S, Tabibi SS, Movahhedian N. Prevalence of upper cervical vertebral anomalies in children with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate in comparison with children without cleft in Iranian population. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):602. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-05798-6
  30. Horswell BB. The incidence and relationship of cervical spine anomalies in patients with cleft lip and/or palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991;49(7):693-7. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80229-0
  31. Vastardis H, Karimbux N, Guthua SW, Seidman JG, Seidman CE. A human MSX1 homeodomain missense mutation causes selective tooth agenesis. Nat Genet. 1996;13(4):417-21. doi:10.1038/ng0896-417
  32. Fesmire FM, Luten RC. The pediatric cervical spine: developmental anatomy and clinical aspects. J Emerg Med. 1989;7(2):133-42. doi:10.1016/0736-4679(89)90258-8
  33. Keser N, Çıkla U, Özaydın B, Başkaya M. The importance of arcuate foramen, a variation of the atlas: A microsurgical cadaveric study and review of the literature. 2019;20(5):377-381.
  34. Ahn J, Duran M, Syldort S, et al. Arcuate foramen: anatomy, embryology, nomenclature, pathology, and surgical considerations. World neurosurgery. 2018;118:197-202.
  35. Sanchis-Gimeno JA, Llido S, Miquel-Feutch M, et al. The decreasing prevalence of the arcuate Foramen. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:521-525. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.10.037