Morphometric assessment of greater palatine canal and foramen variations in cleft lip and palate patients using CBCT

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Rabia Duman Tepe, Beliz Guray, Sukriye Neslihan Senel, Hulya Cakir Karabas
{"title":"Morphometric assessment of greater palatine canal and foramen variations in cleft lip and palate patients using CBCT","authors":"Rabia Duman Tepe,&nbsp;Beliz Guray,&nbsp;Sukriye Neslihan Senel,&nbsp;Hulya Cakir Karabas","doi":"10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Anatomical variation of the greater palatine canal (GPC) is critical for safe regional anesthesia and posterior maxillary surgery. This study aimed to evaluate GPC anatomy in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to support safer clinical interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Anatomical comparisons were performed between CLP patients and non-cleft controls using CBCT scans. Evaluated parameters included greater palatine foramen (GPF) width, linear distances from the GPF to surrounding anatomical landmarks (such as the pterygoid canal (PC), infraorbital foramen (IOF), occlusal plane, and midsagittal plane), angular measurements of the GPC (transverse and vertical angles, and the angle toward the pterygopalatine fossa), the number of lesser palatine foramina, and the position of the GPF relative to maxillary molars. Subgroup analyses were conducted within the CLP group based on cleft type (unilateral cleft side, non-cleft side, bilateral), age (≤16 vs. &gt;16 years), and sex.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study included 118 patients with CLP and 118 healthy controls. CLP patients demonstrated significantly longer PC–IOF distances and significantly shorter GPF–PC distances compared to controls (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001 for both). In addition, both transverse and vertical GPC angles were significantly greater in the CLP group (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that bilateral CLP patients had lower PC–IOF distances and smaller vertical GPC angles compared to those with unilateral clefts (<em>p</em> = 0.018, <em>p</em> = 0.011).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>CLP patients demonstrate anatomical variations in GPC morphology that may affect anesthetic access and surgical safety. These findings highlight the value of individualized CBCT-based planning in maxillary procedures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55993,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"126 5","pages":"Article 102487"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468785525002733","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Anatomical variation of the greater palatine canal (GPC) is critical for safe regional anesthesia and posterior maxillary surgery. This study aimed to evaluate GPC anatomy in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to support safer clinical interventions.

Methods

Anatomical comparisons were performed between CLP patients and non-cleft controls using CBCT scans. Evaluated parameters included greater palatine foramen (GPF) width, linear distances from the GPF to surrounding anatomical landmarks (such as the pterygoid canal (PC), infraorbital foramen (IOF), occlusal plane, and midsagittal plane), angular measurements of the GPC (transverse and vertical angles, and the angle toward the pterygopalatine fossa), the number of lesser palatine foramina, and the position of the GPF relative to maxillary molars. Subgroup analyses were conducted within the CLP group based on cleft type (unilateral cleft side, non-cleft side, bilateral), age (≤16 vs. >16 years), and sex.

Results

The study included 118 patients with CLP and 118 healthy controls. CLP patients demonstrated significantly longer PC–IOF distances and significantly shorter GPF–PC distances compared to controls (P < 0.001 for both). In addition, both transverse and vertical GPC angles were significantly greater in the CLP group (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that bilateral CLP patients had lower PC–IOF distances and smaller vertical GPC angles compared to those with unilateral clefts (p = 0.018, p = 0.011).

Conclusions

CLP patients demonstrate anatomical variations in GPC morphology that may affect anesthetic access and surgical safety. These findings highlight the value of individualized CBCT-based planning in maxillary procedures.
用CBCT评价唇腭裂患者腭大管及腭孔的形态变化。
目的:大腭管的解剖变异对区域麻醉和上颌后牙手术的安全至关重要。本研究旨在利用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)评估唇腭裂(CLP)患者的GPC解剖,为更安全的临床干预提供支持。方法:利用CBCT扫描对CLP患者和非唇裂对照组进行解剖比较。评估参数包括腭大孔(GPF)的宽度,从GPF到周围解剖标志(如翼状管(PC),眶下孔(IOF),咬合面和中矢状面)的线性距离,GPC的角度测量(横向和垂直角度,以及翼腭窝的角度),腭小孔的数量,以及GPF相对于上颌磨牙的位置。CLP组根据唇裂类型(单侧唇裂、非唇裂、双侧唇裂)、年龄(≤16岁vs. 0 ~ 16岁)和性别进行亚组分析。结果:本研究纳入118例CLP患者和118例健康对照。与对照组相比,CLP患者表现出更长的PC-IOF距离和更短的GPF-PC距离(两者P < 0.001)。此外,CLP组的横向和垂直GPC角均显著增加(P < 0.001)。亚组分析显示,与单侧唇裂患者相比,双侧CLP患者的PC-IOF距离较低,垂直GPC角度较小(p =0.018, p =0.011)。结论:CLP患者表现出GPC形态的解剖变化,可能影响麻醉通路和手术安全性。这些发现强调了上颌手术中基于cbct的个体化规划的价值。
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
Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Surgery, Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, Otorhinolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
23 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信