Table 2.
Use of CBCT for CLP diagnosis in children. BCLP, bilateral cleft lip palate; CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; CEJ-AC, cementoenamel junction–alveolar crest; CG, control group (side); CLP, cleft lip palate; F, female; M, male; UCLP, unilateral cleft lip palate.
| Authors | Sample size | 2D/3D | Results in accordance to CBCT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wriedt et al. (46) | 20 (16 M; 4 F) | 2D + 3D | CBCT only justified in special cases |
| Buyuk et al. (29) | 44 (26 M; 18 F) | 3D | Prevalence of dehiscence was found higher in the CLP group compared to the CG |
| CG: 51 (21 M; 30 F) | |||
| Celebi et al. (41) | 40 (20 M; 20 F) | 3D | Root volume assessment by using CBCT reveals smaller volume of roots on the cleft side compared to the non-cleft side |
| CG: 40 (20 M; 20 F) | |||
| Celikoglu et al. (37) | UCLP: 24 | 3D | UCLP and BCLP have insignificantly decreased values of mandibular volume compared to a normal occlusion group, evaluated by CBCT |
| BCLP: 17 | |||
| CG: 25 | |||
| Ercan et al. (31) | 31 (7 F; 24 M) | 3D | Bone thickness assessment by using CBCT: smaller bone thickness on the cleft side; mean CEJ-AC distance for central teeth: UCLP region > non-cleft region* |
| Garib et al. (28) | BCLP: 10 (5 M; 5 F) | 3D | CBCT is a useful method to assess alveolar bone plate thickness and bone dehiscence in teeth, adjacent to clefts |
| Janssen et al. (47) | 11 (6 M; 5 F) | 3D | CBCT is reliable at relatively low resolution for volumetric analysis |
| Lee et al. (38) | UCLP: 7 (3 M; 4 F) | 3D | Volume (bone graft) ~ volume(cleft) r = 0.96* |
| Lin et al. (33) | 30 (20 M; 10 F) | 3D | Facial asymmetry assessment by using CBCT showed more severe lower facial asymmetry: more asymmetrical positions and rotations of the condyles, with a positive correlation with chin deviation in UCLP patients |
| CG: 40 (16 M; 24 F) | |||
| Lin et al. (34) | 30 (18 M; 12 F) | 3D | UCLP patients had more retrusive maxillary and mandibular positions relative to the cranial base (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively); UCLP group had more severe vertical discrepancies* |
| CG: 30 (17 M; 13 F) | |||
| Linderup et al. (42) | 10 (6 M; 4 F) | 3D | CBCT is a reproducible and practical method for assessing the volumetric outcome of secondary alveolar bone grafting in UCLP patients |
| Oberoi et al. (45) | 21 (15 M; 6 F) | 3D | Volume rendering using CBCT is reproducible and practical method to assess preoperative alveolar cleft volume |
| Paknahad et al. (39) | 60 (20 UCLP; 20 BCLP; 20 controls) | 3D | CBCT evaluation showed that the mandible appears to be leading factor in facial asymmetry in CLP patients |
| Starbuck et al. (35) | 15 BCLP (11 M; 4 F) | 3D | 3D imaging allows increased access, assessment, and measurement of craniofacial structures; BCLP deformity alters facial skeletal morphology of the midface, the oronasal region, and the upper facial skeleton. All these results were statistically significant |
| CG: 15 (11 M; 4 F) | |||
| Starbuck et al. (36) | UCLP: 26 (17 M; 9 F) | 3D | UCLP congenital anomaly is strongly associated with dysmorphology and asymmetry of the nasal regions of the midface; morphometric differences were also found for the upper and lower facial skeletons |
| CG: 26 (17 M; 9 F) | |||
| Starbuck et al. (44) | 55 (40 M; 15 F) | 3D | Significant differences in tissue depth symmetry were found around the cutaneous upper lip and nose in unilateral CLP patients |
| Yang et al. (40) | UCLP: 21 (13 M; 8 F) | 3D | CBCT assessment of facial asymmetry concluded that significant differences between cleft and non-cleft sides only exist around the cleft, and not in deeper regions of maxillary complex |
| CG: 14 (6 M; 8 F) | |||
| Zhang et al. (43) | 40 (30 M; 10 F) | 3D | Significant delay in dental development in cleft patients |
| Zhou et al. (42) | 60 CLP (40 UCLP; 20 BCLP) | 3D | CBCT is a valid tool to evaluate developmental deficiency in teeth adjacent to the cleft; permanent upper incisors in CLP patients are underdeveloped |
| CG: 53 |
*Statistically significant.