Craniofacial integration and modularity in untreated cleft lip and palate.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Sariesendy Sumardi, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Benny S Latief, Hans L L Wellens, Piotr S Fudalej
{"title":"Craniofacial integration and modularity in untreated cleft lip and palate.","authors":"Sariesendy Sumardi, Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman, Benny S Latief, Hans L L Wellens, Piotr S Fudalej","doi":"10.1007/s00784-025-06296-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To quantify craniofacial variation, integration, and modularity in untreated adults with orofacial clefts who had not undergone surgery, as well as in unaffected controls.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fourteen cephalometric landmarks depicting the skull base, maxilla, and mandible were identified on lateral cephalograms of 295 adult Proto-Malayid individuals. The sample included 243 individuals with unoperated clefts-179 with complete unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA, mean age 23.7 years) and 66 with complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP, mean age 24.5 years)-and 50 unaffected controls (NORM, mean age 21.2 years). Geometric morphometrics were used to analyze craniofacial shape variability, integration, and modularity. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess shape variability, while canonical variates analysis (CVA) was used to evaluate group differences by calculating Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances. Integration and modularity were tested for five scenarios: (1) skull base vs. maxilla vs. mandible, (2) skull base with maxilla vs. mandible, (3) skull base with mandible vs. maxilla, (4) skull base vs. maxilla with mandible, and (5) anterior vs. posterior modules. The RV coefficient and covariance ratio were used to assess covariation strength.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first 6 principal components (PC1-PC6) explained 72% of the total shape variability, with vertical shape variation and sagittal relationships being the primary sources of variability. Craniofacial shape varied significantly among the groups, with the largest Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances observed between the NORM and UCLAP groups (p < 0.001), and the smallest between the UCLA and UCLAP groups (p < 0.001). Modularity and integration patterns differed between cleft-affected individuals and controls; Those with clefts had anterior and posterior modules separated by the pterygomaxillary plane, while controls showed distinct modules for the skull base, maxilla, and mandible or combined skull base-mandible and maxilla.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Unoperated unilateral UCLA and UCLAP affect craniofacial integration and modularity.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>These insights highlight the importance of individualized treatment approaches that consider congenital craniofacial organization, potentially improving long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 4","pages":"218"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11958437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06296-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To quantify craniofacial variation, integration, and modularity in untreated adults with orofacial clefts who had not undergone surgery, as well as in unaffected controls.

Materials and methods: Fourteen cephalometric landmarks depicting the skull base, maxilla, and mandible were identified on lateral cephalograms of 295 adult Proto-Malayid individuals. The sample included 243 individuals with unoperated clefts-179 with complete unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA, mean age 23.7 years) and 66 with complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP, mean age 24.5 years)-and 50 unaffected controls (NORM, mean age 21.2 years). Geometric morphometrics were used to analyze craniofacial shape variability, integration, and modularity. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess shape variability, while canonical variates analysis (CVA) was used to evaluate group differences by calculating Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances. Integration and modularity were tested for five scenarios: (1) skull base vs. maxilla vs. mandible, (2) skull base with maxilla vs. mandible, (3) skull base with mandible vs. maxilla, (4) skull base vs. maxilla with mandible, and (5) anterior vs. posterior modules. The RV coefficient and covariance ratio were used to assess covariation strength.

Results: The first 6 principal components (PC1-PC6) explained 72% of the total shape variability, with vertical shape variation and sagittal relationships being the primary sources of variability. Craniofacial shape varied significantly among the groups, with the largest Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances observed between the NORM and UCLAP groups (p < 0.001), and the smallest between the UCLA and UCLAP groups (p < 0.001). Modularity and integration patterns differed between cleft-affected individuals and controls; Those with clefts had anterior and posterior modules separated by the pterygomaxillary plane, while controls showed distinct modules for the skull base, maxilla, and mandible or combined skull base-mandible and maxilla.

Conclusions: Unoperated unilateral UCLA and UCLAP affect craniofacial integration and modularity.

Clinical relevance: These insights highlight the importance of individualized treatment approaches that consider congenital craniofacial organization, potentially improving long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes.

未经治疗的唇腭裂颅面整合与模组化。
目的:量化未接受手术治疗的成人口面裂患者以及未受影响的对照组的颅面变异、整合和模块化。材料和方法:在295名成年原始马来人的侧位脑电图上确定了14个颅测量标志,描绘了颅底、上颌骨和下颌骨。样本包括243例未手术的唇裂患者,其中179例为完全性单侧唇裂和肺泡裂(UCLA,平均年龄23.7岁),66例为完全性单侧唇裂、肺泡裂和腭裂(UCLAP,平均年龄24.5岁),另外50例为未手术的对照组(NORM,平均年龄21.2岁)。几何形态计量学用于分析颅面形状的变异性、整合性和模块化。主成分分析(PCA)用于评估形状差异,典型变量分析(CVA)通过计算Mahalanobis和Procrustes距离来评估群体差异。集成和模块化测试了五个场景:(1)颅底vs上颌骨vs下颌骨,(2)颅底与上颌骨vs下颌骨,(3)颅底与下颌骨vs上颌骨,(4)颅底vs上颌骨与下颌骨,(5)前模块vs后模块。采用RV系数和协方差比评价协变强度。结果:前6个主成分(PC1-PC6)解释了72%的总形状变异,其中垂直形状变异和矢状关系是变异的主要来源。各组间颅面形状差异显著,NORM组和UCLAP组之间观察到的Mahalanobis和Procrustes距离最大(p结论:未手术的单侧UCLA和UCLAP影响颅面整合和模块化。临床相关性:这些见解强调了考虑先天性颅面组织的个性化治疗方法的重要性,可能改善长期功能和美学结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Investigations
Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
484
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信