Do Orofacial Clefts Represent Different Genetic Entities?

Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate: Prenatal Accuracy, Postnatal Course, and Long-Term Outcomes

Orofacial clefts include cleft lip (CL) and cleft palate (CP). This retrospective study assessed the efficacy of prenatal sonographic diagnosis of isolated and non-isolated cases of CL/CP and the postnatal outcomes of these children. Data regarding patients diagnosed and treated in the tertiary orofacial clinic from 2000 to 2020 were retrieved from electronic medical records and telephone-based questionnaires. Isolated CL was found in 7 cases (7.2%), isolated CP in 51 (53%), and combined CL/CP in 38 (39.5%), and 22 cases (23%) were associated with other anomalies. Among 96 cases, 39 (40.6%) were diagnosed prenatally. Isolated CL was diagnosed in 5/7 (71.5%), combined clefts in 29/38 (76.3%), and CP in 7/51 (13.8%). Prenatal chromosomal analysis performed in 32/39 (82%) cases was normal for all. The rate of surgical intervention in the first year of life was 36/38 (94.7%) for combined clefts, 5/7 (71.4%) for CL, and 20/51 (39%) for isolated CP. Most children had speech therapy (23/38 (60.5%), 3/7 (42.8%), and 41/51 (80.3%), respectively) and psychotherapy (6/38 (15.7%), 3/7 (42.8%) and, 15/51 (29.4%), respectively). The accuracy rate of sonographic prenatal diagnosis is low. Our results emphasize the suggested work-up of fetuses with CL and/or CP and improvements to parental counseling, as well as their understanding and compliance regarding post-natal therapeutic plans.

Family history in non-syndromic orofacial clefts: Is there a pattern?

OBJECTIVE

To survey the frequency and pattern of family history for non-syndromic orofacial clefts (NSOFC). Initial hypothesis: more complex forms have a higher frequency of positive family history.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was carried with 2,668 subjects with three different types of clefts (CL Group (cleft lip), CLP Group (cleft lip and palate), and CP group (cleft palate)); family history information was collected. The Chi-square (X² ) and Z-test were used.

RESULTS

A positive family history was found in 31% of the sample. The CLP Group had highest percentage and highest proportion of affected relatives, being these factors statistically significant when compared to the CP Group. Comparisons between the CLP Male and CL Male with CP Male were statistically significant. First-degree kinship was the most frequently found.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial hypothesis was confirmed, subjects with CLP had the highest percentage of positive family history, the highest proportion of affected relatives and had more affected relatives in comparison with CP. It is more common to find affected relatives in the CLP Male and CL Male groups when compared with CP Male. CLP and CP groups present a pattern of occurrence of the type of cleft in the family.

Exploring the speech and language of individuals with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate: a preliminary report

BACKGROUND

Submucous cleft palate (SMCP) has a heterogeneous presentation and is often identified late or misdiagnosed. Diagnosis is prompted by speech, resonance or feeding symptoms associated with velopharyngeal insufficiency. However, the broader impacts of SMCP on communication have rarely been examined and therefore are poorly understood.

AIM

To describe the communicative profile of individuals with non-syndromic SMCP by examining speech, language and pragmatics (social language).

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Fifteen participants with SMCP aged 5;1-12;8, without a genetic diagnosis, participated in the study. Participants completed standardized assessments examining language, resonance, speech and non-verbal intellect. Parents also completed the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC-2), which provided a measure of overall communicative ability, including pragmatic skills. Formal language outcomes were compared with two cohorts: 36 individuals with overt non-syndromic clefts and 129 individuals with no history of clefting.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Speech intelligibility was reduced secondary to hypernasality, disordered articulation and/or impaired phonology (n = 7) in children with SMCP. Poorer overall language outcomes were observed for children with SMCP compared with both those with overt clefts and no history of clefting (p < 0.001). Language scores for children with SMCP ranged from impaired (n = 6) to above the standardized mean (n = 4). Receptive and expressive language performance were independently correlated with non-verbal IQ (p < 0.01). Those with severe language impairment (n = 4) also had borderline or impaired non-verbal IQ. Parents reported that speech and semantics were the most affected sub-domains of communication, while scores were the highest for the initiation domain. Speech and language skills were correlated strongly with pragmatics (r = 0.877, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Overall, performance was variable within the SMCP group across speech, language and pragmatic assessments. In addition to well-documented speech difficulties, children with SMCP may have language or pragmatic impairments, suggesting that further neurodevelopmental influences may be at play. As such, for individuals with SMCP, additional clinical screening of language and pragmatic abilities may be required to ensure accurate diagnosis and guide both cleft and non-cleft related therapy programmes.

Subphenotyping and Classification of Orofacial Clefts: Need for Orofacial Cleft Subphenotyping Calls for Revised Classification

Nonsyndromic orofacial clefting (OFC) describes a range of phenotypes that represent the most common craniofacial birth defects in humans, with an overall birth prevalence of 1:700 live births. Because of the lifelong negative implications on health and well-being associated with OFC and the numbers of people affected, quality research into its etiology, diagnosis, treatment outcomes, and preventative strategies is essential. A range of different methods is used for recording and classifying OFC subphenotypes, one of which is the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system. However, there is a general perception that research is being hampered by a lack of sensitivity and specificity in grouping those with OFC into subphenotypes, with potential heterogeneity and confounding in epidemiologic, genetic, and genotype-phenotype correlation studies. This article provides a background to the necessity of OFC research, discusses current controversies within cleft subphenotyping, and provides a brief overview of current OFC classifications as well as their limitations. The LAHSHAL classification is described in the context of a potentially useful tool for OFC that could complement the ICD-10/ICD-11 Beta coding systems to become a simply understood, universally accepted, clinically friendly, and research-sensitive instrument. Empowering registries, clinicians, and researchers to use a common classification system would have significant implications for OFC research across the world at a time when accurate subphenotyping is crucial and health care research is becoming increasingly tailored toward the individual.

Bony defect of palate and vomer in submucous cleft palate patients

The aim of this study was to visualize bony defects of the palate and vomer in submucous cleft palate patients (SMCP) by three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) reconstruction and to classify the range of bony defects. Forty-eight consecutive non-operated SMCP patients were included. Diagnosis was based on the presence of at least one of three classical signs of SMCP: bifid uvula, a translucent zone in the midline of the soft palate, and a palpable 'V' notch on the posterior border of the bony palate. Patients were imaged using spiral CT. 3D reconstruction models were created of the palate and vomer. The sagittal extent of the bony cleft in SMCP was classified into four types: type I, no V-shaped hard palate cleft (8.3%); type II, cleft involving the partial palate (43.8%); type III, cleft involving the complete palate and extending to the incisive foramen (43.8%); type IV, cleft involving the complete palate and the alveolar bone (4.2%). The extent of the vomer defect was classified into three types: type A, vomer completely fused with the palate (8.3%); type B, vomer partially fused with the palate (43.8%); type C, vomer not fused with the palate up to the incisive foramen (47.9%). Significant variability in hard palate defects in SMCP is the rule rather than the exception. The association of velopharyngeal insufficiency with anatomical malformations may be complex.