Three-dimensional analysis of the velopharyngeal region in patients with cleft palate and healthy individuals.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Cleft Palate
/ complications
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
Female
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Male
Middle Aged
Palate, Soft
/ anatomy & histology
Pharynx
/ anatomy & histology
Postoperative Period
Retrospective Studies
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency
/ diagnostic imaging
Young Adult
Cleft palate
Cone beam computed tomography
Velopharyngeal dimensions
Velopharynx
Journal
Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA
ISSN: 1279-8517
Titre abrégé: Surg Radiol Anat
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8608029
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
15
04
2020
accepted:
25
06
2020
pubmed:
9
7
2020
medline:
9
3
2021
entrez:
9
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aims to attain metric data of the velopharyngeal dimensions of healthy subjects as well as patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency using the example of cleft and lip palate (CLP) in order to determine possible differences in the volumes of both groups. Volumes and distances of velopharyngeal areas were analyzed retrospectively using cone beam computed tomography data sets (n = 60). Group 1 included healthy patients receiving dental implants (n = 31). Group 2 was represented by patients with surgically closed cleft lip and palate (n = 29). Biggest differences among mean values of both groups were found for: minimum axial area (p = 0.000), airway area caudal (p = 0.000), distance between posterior nasal spine and posterior pharyngeal wall (PPW) (p = 0.014), mean distance between velum and PPW (p = 0.000), length of PPW (p = 0.000) and length of anterior pharyngeal wall (p = 0.000). Differences in the shape and geometry of the velopharyngeal area in subjects with a regular velopharyngeal structure and function and patients with cleft palate do exist. The significant differences found here can be categorized into two groups: one reflects distances between the anterior and posterior pharynx, presenting longer distances for patients with CLP. The second significant difference regards values of length in cranio-caudal direction, which is longer in healthy subjects. With regards to these values, one could conclude, that even though total volumes of both groups did not differ in size, group 1 shows three-dimensional velopharyngeal shapes that are longer and narrower, whereas shapes of patients of group 2 tend to be wider and shorter in general.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32638103
doi: 10.1007/s00276-020-02526-3
pii: 10.1007/s00276-020-02526-3
pmc: PMC7363670
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1033-1042Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie
ID : ZF 4598701AJ8
Références
Angle Orthod. 2014 Nov;84(6):995-1001
pubmed: 24665888
J Can Dent Assoc. 2006 Feb;72(1):75-80
pubmed: 16480609
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Jun;145(6):780-6
pubmed: 24880849
J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003 Nov;31(11):825-33
pubmed: 14696834
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Laryngorhinootologie. 2013 Oct;92(10):667-72
pubmed: 24105038
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Apr;137(4 Suppl):S50.e1-9; discussion S50-2
pubmed: 20381759
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020 Feb;57(2):238-244
pubmed: 31672024
J Orofac Orthop. 2007 Jul;68(4):278-89
pubmed: 17639276
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Dec;45(12):1962-1970
pubmed: 29066041
Proc R Soc Med. 1954 Feb;47(2):91-100
pubmed: 13134182
Eur J Radiol. 2010 Aug;75(2):265-9
pubmed: 19410409
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43405
pubmed: 22952677