Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Distribution, side involvement, phenotype and associated anomalies of Korean patients with craniofacial clefts from single university hospitalbased data obtained during 1998?2018

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2020³â 50±Ç 6È£ p.383 ~ 390
Á¤ÁöÇõ, ÀÓ¼±Áø, Á¶ÀϽÄ, Àӽ¿ø, ¾çÀÏÇü, ÇÏÁ¤Çö, ±è¼®È­, ¹é½ÂÇÐ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤ÁöÇõ ( Chung Jee-Hyeok ) - Seoul National University Children¡¯s Hospital Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
ÀÓ¼±Áø ( Yim Sun-Jin ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
Á¶ÀϽĠ( Cho Il-Sik ) - Private practice
Àӽ¿ø ( Lim Seung-Weon ) - Chonnam National University School of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
¾çÀÏÇü ( Yang Il-Hyung ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
ÇÏÁ¤Çö ( Ha Jeong-Hyun ) - Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
±è¼®È­ ( Kim Suk-Wha ) - Seoul National University College of Medicine Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
¹é½ÂÇР( Baek Seung-Hak ) - Seoul National University School of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics

Abstract


Objective: To investigate the distribution, side involvement, phenotype, and associated anomalies of Korean patients with craniofacial clefts (CFC).

Methods: The samples consisted of 38 CFC patients, who were treated at Seoul National University Dental Hospital during 1998?2018. The Tessier cleft type, sex, side involvement, phenotype, and associated anomalies were investigated using nonparametric statistical analysis.

Results: The three most common types were #7 cleft, followed by #0 cleft and #14 cleft. There was no difference between the frequency of male and female. Patients with #0 cleft exhibited nasal deformity, bony defect, and missing teeth in the premaxilla, midline cleft lip, and eye problems. A patient with #3 cleft (unilateral type) exhibited bilateral cleft lip and alveolus. All patients with #4 cleft were the bilateral type, including a combination of #3 and #4 clefts, and had multiple missing teeth. A patient with #5 cleft (unilateral type) had a posterior openbite. In patients with #7 cleft, the unilateral type was more prevalent than the bilateral type (87.0% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.001). Sixteen patients showed hemifacial microsomia (HFM), Goldenhar syndrome, and unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). There was a significant match in the side involvement of #7 cleft and HFM (87.5%, p < 0.01). Patients with #14 cleft had plagiocephaly, UCLP, or hyperterorbitism. A patient with #30 cleft exhibited tongue tie and missing tooth.

Conclusions: Due to the diverse associated craniofacial anomalies in patients with CFC, a multidisciplinary approach involving a well-experienced cooperative team is mandatory for these patients.

Å°¿öµå

Craniofacial clefts; Distribution; Phenotype; Associated anomalies

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed