ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Craniofacial morphological variability in orthodontic patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts: an approach using geometric morphometrics.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covariation Between Palatal Shape and Craniofacial Morphology in Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip, Alveolus, and Palate: A Geometric Morphometric Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Craniofacial morphology and its association with masseter and medial pterygoid muscle thickness among adults from a population-based sample.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOrofacial clefts are complex congenital anomalies that call for comprehensive treatment based on a thorough assessment of the anatomy. This study aims to examine the effect of cleft type on craniofacial morphology using geometric morphometrics. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated lateral cephalograms of 75 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate, 63 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, and 76 patients with isolated cleft palate. Generalized Procrustes analysis was performed on 16 hard tissue landmark coordinates. Shape variability was studied with principal component analysis. In a risk model approach, the first nine principal components (PC) were used to examine the effect of cleft type.
resultsWe found statistically significant differences in the mean shape between cleft types. The difference is greatest between bilateral cleft lip and palate and isolated cleft palate (distance of means 0.026, P = 0.0011). Differences between cleft types are most pronounced for PC4 and PC5 (P = 0.0001), which together account for 10% of the total shape variation. PC4 and PC5 show shape differences in the ratio of the upper to the lower face, the posterior mandibular height, and the mandibular angle.
conclusionsCleft type has a statistically significant but weak effect on craniofacial morphological variability in patients with non-syndromic orofacial clefts, mainly in the vertical dimension. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the effects of clefts on craniofacial morphology is essential to providing patients with treatment tailored to their specific needs. This study contributes to the literature particularly due to our risk model approach in lieu of a prediction model.
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.