PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 4065001

Classification of clefting deformity.

A Sandham
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The classification of clefting deformity should be descriptively clear and have an embryological basis. Clinicians who use Veau classification make comparisons difficult and confusions can arise. Many proposals for grouping the various categories of the deformity have been put forward, the one suggested by Kernahan and Stark (Plastic Reconstruct. Surg., 22 (1958) 435-441) being the most comprehensive. The classification described here is modified from Kernahan and Stark and is becoming more widely used as it is both simple and embryologically sound.

Explore related subjects

Cleft LipCleft PalateFunctional LateralityHumansInfant, NewbornComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Sandham. 1985. Classification of clefting deformity.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3782(85)90140-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

p63-associated disorders.

Heterozygous mutations in the transcription factor gene p63 are causative for several syndromes, with ectodermal dysplasia, orofacial clefting and limb malformations as the key characteristics. Different combinations of these features are seen in five different syndromes, of which ectrodactyly, ectodermal dysplasia and cleft lip/palate syndrome (EEC) is the most common one. Mutations in p63 can also cause non-syndromic single malformations, such as split hand foot malformation (SHFM4) and isolated cleft lip (NSCL). In this article we will present an overview of diseases caused by mutations in the p63 gene and review the known pathogenic p63 gene mutations.

Cleft Lip↗
PubMed2007

Folic acid-containing supplement consumption during pregnancy and risk for oral clefts: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is equivocal evidence in the published literature that folic acid supplementation during pregnancy may protect against the common congenital anomalies cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CLP) and cleft palate alone (CP). We undertook this meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that nonsyndromic oral cleft birth prevalences are different for those whose mothers took folic acid-containing supplements and for those whose mothers did not. METHODS: Human studies published in English were identified through MEDLINE, bibliography reviews, and contacting experts in the field. Within strata of prospective and case-control studies, CLP, CP, and all clefts, respectively, were analyzed using either a fixed or random effects model, as appropriate. We assessed for publication bias using Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation and Egger's regression-based tests. RESULTS: Five prospective studies were analyzed, yielding combined relative risks of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.95) for CLP, 1.19 (95% CI: 0.43, 3.28) for CP, and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.95) for all clefts. Twelve case-control studies were assessed, which resulted in combined relative risks of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.90) for CLP, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.93) for CP, and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.85) for all clefts. CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, our results support the hypothesis of a protective effect of folic acid-containing supplement intake during pregnancy on the risk for oral clefts, although this conclusion is tempered by the potential for bias and uncontrolled confounding.

Cleft Lip↗
PubMed2007

Reduction in orofacial clefts following folic acid fortification of the U.S. grain supply.

BACKGROUND: Folic acid fortification in the United States became mandatory January 1, 1998, to reduce the occurrence of neural tube defects (NTDs). We evaluated the impact of folic acid fortification on orofacial clefts using United States birth certificate data for 45 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated comparing orofacial cleft prevalence among births prefortification (1/1990-12/1996) and postfortification (10/1998-12/2002), based on fortification status at conception. The JoinPoint Regression Program and exponentially weighted moving average charts (EWMA) were used to assess the timing of any statistically significant changes in prevalence. Data were stratified by maternal race/ethnicity, age, smoking, and timing of prenatal care. RESULTS: Orofacial clefts declined following folic acid fortification (PR=0.94; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96). The EWMA chart flagged a significant decrease in the fourth quarter of 1998. The JoinPoint graph had one change in slope, with a significant quarterly percent change (-0.34) between 1996 and 2002. The decline in orofacial clefts occurred in non-Hispanic Whites but not other racial/ethnic groups, nonsmokers but not women who reported smoking during pregnancy, and women who received prenatal care in the first trimester but not women who began receiving care later in pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Folic acid fortification in the United States was associated with a small decrease in orofacial cleft prevalence, with the timing of the decline consistent with the introduction of fortification. The decline is much smaller than that observed for NTDs, but nonetheless suggests an additional benefit of this public health intervention.

Cleft Lip↗