scholarly journals Corrigendum to Velopharyngeal Muscle Morphology in Children With Unrepaired Submucous Cleft Palate: An Imaging Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 796-797
2020 ◽  
pp. 105566562095474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham C. Schenck ◽  
Jamie L. Perry ◽  
Mary M. O’Gara ◽  
Amy Morgan Linde ◽  
Mitchell F. Grasseschi ◽  
...  

Objective: To identify quantitative and qualitative differences in the velopharyngeal musculature and surrounding structures between children with submucous cleft palate (SMCP) and velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) and noncleft controls with normal anatomy and normal speech. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate the velopharyngeal mechanism in 20 children between 4 and 9 years of age; 5 with unrepaired SMCP and VPI. Quantitative and qualitative measures of the velum and levator veli palatini in participants with symptomatic SMCP were compared to noncleft controls with normal velopharyngeal anatomy and normal speech. Results: Analysis of covariance revealed that children with symptomatic SMCP demonstrated increased velar genu angle (15.6°, P = .004), decreased α angle (13.2°, P = .37), and longer (5.1 mm, P = .32) and thinner (4 mm, P = .005) levator veli palatini muscles compared to noncleft controls. Qualitative comparisons revealed discontinuity of the levator muscle through the velar midline and absence of a musculus uvulae in children with symptomatic SMCP compared to noncleft controls. Conclusions: The levator veli palatini muscle is longer, thinner, and discontinuous through the velar midline, and the musculus uvulae is absent in children with SMCP and VPI compared to noncleft controls. The overall velar configuration in children with SMCP and VPI is disadvantageous for achieving adequate velopharyngeal closure necessary for nonnasal speech compared to noncleft controls. These findings add to the body of literature documenting levator muscle, musculus uvulae, and velar and craniometric parameters in children with SMCP.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasir S. Jamal ◽  
Sabah S. Moshref ◽  
Abeer M. Baamir ◽  
Mazin O. Kurdi ◽  
Doaa Y. Jamal

Abstract Background Submucous cleft palate (SMCP) is a congenital abnormality with various clinical and anatomical features. Submucous cleft pathologies may be unrecognized during routine examinations. Current diagnostic techniques are constrained and unrevealing in presurgical patients. This prospective study aimed to evaluate transnasal palatal transillumination technique in diagnosis of SMCP at our institute hospital, during period from 2005-2020. Patients and methods Twenty-one cases with SMCP were recruited with age range from 2-60 months. Transnasal palatal transillumination with controllable light intensity endoscope used to evaluate SMCP and cases were photo and video recorded. Results In this study, 21 cases (13 males and 8 females) with SMCP were detected or confirmed by intranasal transnasal palatal transillumination. Frequency of SMCP patients at our institute was 3.39%. All patients presented with symptomatic complaints at diagnosis time, apart from 5 patients (23.8%) were diagnosed during cleft lip repair operations. Presenting symptoms were hypernasality (23.8%), delayed speech (23.8%), perforated palate with nasal escape of milk and food (14.3%), feeding difficulties (14.3%), and otitis media (4.8%). During intra-oral examination, all cases had a bifid uvula accompanied SMCP. Submucous cleft palate appeared as thin palate with central lucency. According to operative findings, operations done for repair were mostly two long palatal flaps (n = 13, 61.9%), von Langenbeck (n = 5, 23.8%), simple repair with lateral release incisions (n = 2, 9.6%), and simple repair without lateral release incision (n = 1, 4.8%). Conclusions Intraoperative assessment of submucous cleft palate with transnasal palatal transillumination is easy and cheap method to avoid missing cases of SMCP.


Author(s):  
João Paulo Schwartz ◽  
Daniela Gamba Garib

Summary Background/Objectives This retrospective study evaluated the prevalence of dental anomalies of number in different subphenotypes of isolated cleft palate. Materials/Methods The sample comprised 26 individuals with submucous cleft palate (group S) and 68 individuals with complete cleft palate (group C) aged between 9 and 12 years from a single centre. Panoramic radiographs were evaluated regarding the presence of dental anomalies of number in permanent teeth. Intergroup comparison was performed using chi-square tests (P < 0.05). Results Tooth agenesis was found in 34.61 and 36.76 per cent of group S and group C, respectively. The most commonly missing teeth were the maxillary second premolar, maxillary lateral incisor, and mandibular second premolar. Supernumerary teeth were found in none and 1.47 per cent of the individuals with submucous and complete cleft palate, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between groups for the frequency of tooth agenesis and supernumerary teeth. Limitations Only dental anomalies of number were evaluated. Conclusions/Implications Individuals with submucous and complete cleft palate showed similar prevalence for tooth agenesis and supernumerary teeth. Dental anomalies frequency seems not to be a discriminator for subphenotypes of cleft palate.


Author(s):  
Ariela Nachmani ◽  
Muhamed Masalha ◽  
Firas Kassem

Purpose This purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and types of phonological process errors in patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) and the different types of palatal anomalies. Method A total of 808 nonsyndromic patients with VPD, who underwent follow-up at the Center for Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies, from 2000 to 2016 were included. Patients were stratified into four age groups and five subphenotypes of palatal anomalies: cleft lip and palate (CLP), cleft palate (CP), submucous cleft palate (SMCP), occult submucous cleft palate (OSMCP), and non-CP. Phonological processes were compared among groups. Results The 808 patients ranged in age from 3 to 29 years, and 439 (54.3%) were male. Overall, 262/808 patients (32.4%) had phonological process errors; 80 (59.7%) ages 3–4 years, 98 (40, 0%) ages 4.1–6 years, 48 (24.7%) 6.1–9 years, and 36 (15.3%) 9.1–29 years. Devoicing was the most prevalent phonological process error, found in 97 patients (12%), followed by cluster reduction in 82 (10.1%), fronting in 66 (8.2%), stopping in 45 (5.6%), final consonant deletion in 43 (5.3%), backing in 30 (3.7%), and syllable deletion and onset deletion in 13 (1.6%) patients. No differences were found in devoicing errors between palatal anomalies, even with increasing age. Phonological processes were found in 61/138 (44.20%) with CP, 46/118 (38.1%) with SMCP, 61/188 (32.4%) with non-CP, 70/268 (26.1%) with OSMCP, and 25/96 (26.2%) with CLP. Phonological process errors were most frequent with CP and least with OSMCP ( p = .001). Conclusions Phonological process errors in nonsyndromic VPD patients remained relatively high in all age groups up to adulthood, regardless of the type of palatal anomaly. Our findings regarding the phonological skills of patients with palatal anomalies can help clarify the etiology of speech and sound disorders in VPD patients, and contribute to general phonetic and phonological studies.


2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 756-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takuya Iida ◽  
Susam Park ◽  
Kogo Kato ◽  
Ichiko Kitano

Kabuki syndrome is a syndrome of rare congenital anomalies that was named after its characteristic appearance, a face resembling that of an actor in a Kabuki play. Although cleft palate is a feature that is sometimes observed in patients with Kabuki syndrome, there are few clinical reports of cleft palate associated with Kabuki syndrome. This report presents six cases of Kabuki syndrome with cleft palate and reviews their clinical features. Our results suggest that (1) patients with cleft palate in Kabuki syndrome tend to fail in acquiring normal velopharyngeal function and (2) submucous cleft palate might be more common in patients with Kabuki syndrome than previously was reported.


2018 ◽  
Vol 76 (11) ◽  
pp. 2388-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Congcong Cao ◽  
Xue Xu ◽  
Qian Zheng ◽  
Bing Shi ◽  
Jingtao Li ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document