ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2024
Evaluation of hard palate and cleft morphology in neonates with Pierre Robin Sequence and Cleft Palate Only.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of facial asymmetry in patients with orofacial cleft based on the biometric proposal of the average male face.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Evaluation of hard palate and cleft morphology in neonates with Pierre Robin Sequence and Cleft Palate Only.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2024Article
- Advances in 3D printing for the repair of tympanic membrane perforation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to establish a fully digital measurement protocol for standardizing the description of hard palate and cleft morphology in neonates with an isolated cleft palate (CPO) and Pierre Robin sequence (PRS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 20 digitized plaster models of neonates with CPO and 20 digitized plaster models of neonates with PRS were retrospectively investigated. For the control group, the hard palate was segmented from 21 pre-existing 1.5 T MRI datasets of neonates and exported as an STL file. The digital models were marked with predefined reference points by three raters. Distance, angular, and area measurements were performed using Blender and MeshLab.
resultsNeonates with CPO (20.20 ± 2.33 mm) and PRS (21.41 ± 1.81 mm) had a significantly shorter hard palate than the control group (23.44 ± 2.24 mm) (CPO vs. control: P < .001; PRS vs. control: P = .014). Notably, neonates with PRS (33.05 ± 1.95 mm) demonstrated a significantly wider intertuberosity distance than those with CPO (30.52 ± 2.28 mm) (P = .012). Furthermore, there were also significant differences measured between the cleft and control groups (25.22 ± 2.50 mm) (P < .001).
conclusionsThe data from this study demonstrate the feasibility of using MRI datasets to generate digital models of the hard palate. The presence of a cleft palate leads to pronounced adaptations of the total palatal surface area, dorsal width, and length of the hard palate. Mandibular retrognathia and altered tongue position in PRS, as opposed to CPO, might further impact palatal morphology and intertuberosity distance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.