Evaluation of Orbitomalar Region Projection in Patients With Operated Cleft Lip and Palate (Cephalometric Study)

• Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal Vol. 61; no. 4; pp. 545 - 554
• Main Authors: Şibar, Serhat, Doruk, Mert, Gülşen, Ayşe, Özdemir, Alihan, Tosun, Gülce, Üçüncü, Neslihan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.04.2024
• Subjects: Cephalometry - methods; Cleft Lip - diagnostic imaging; Cleft Lip - surgery; Cleft Palate - diagnostic imaging; Cleft Palate - surgery; Humans; Maxilla; Maxillofacial Development; Retrospective Studies; maxillofacial growth; cephalometry; cleft lip; cleft palate; orbita
• ISSN: 1055-6656; 1545-1569; 1545-1569
• DOI: 10.1177/10556656221133426

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the orbitomalar region projection in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) with skeletal class 1 cases. Design Retrospective. Setting Single center. Patients Cephalometric data of 52 cases with unilateral CLP, 25 cases with bilateral CLP, and 60 healthy participants in skeletal class 1 without CLP were included. Main Outcome Measure(s) A total of 5 parameters, 3 in the orbital and 2 in the suborbital region, that determine the projection of the orbitomalar region on lateral cephalograms, and 13 parameters of the craniofacial region were evaluated. Results Lateral, inferior, and anterior orbital parameters were similar between groups, while suborbital parameters were in a retrusive position in the CLP groups compared to the control group (P < .05). No significant difference was found between the CLP groups in terms of suborbital parameters. A moderate positive correlation was found between orbitomalar parameters and the anteroposterior positions of the maxilla and mandible. The lateral orbital region had a moderate negative correlation with anterior maxillary height, and the suborbital region had a negative moderate correlation with maxillary inclination. Conclusion Suborbital projection was more retrusive in CLP compared to the control group, but no difference was found between the CLP groups. On the other hand, the correlation between orbitomalar projection and maxillary and mandibular development was significant. The results show that there is a need for alternative treatment modalities for the suborbital region in patients with CLP.