Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective observational study evaluates infraorbital canal in cleft lip and palate patients, indicating surgical considerations.
Objectives This study aimed to anatomically evaluate the infraorbital canal (IOC) by comparing patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and controls. Design Retrospective cross-sectional observational study. Setting Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry. Participants Sixty-four children and adolescents aged 13–18 years were included: 36 with unilateral CLP (UCLP), 12 with bilateral CLP (BCLP), and 16 controls. Interventions None; purely observational. Main Outcome Measure(s) Cone-beam computed tomography scans were analyzed bilaterally and grouped as cleft side of UCLP (UCLP-CS), non-cleft side of UCLP (UCLP-NCS), BCLP, and control. Parameters examined included initial and termination diameters of the IOC (D IOF and D C ), IOC length (IOF-C), direct distance between the infraorbital foramen and groove (IOF-S), distances from the IOC to the midline and lateral nasal cavity wall (MW and LNW), anterior, posterior, and horizontal angles of the IOC, IOC protrusion type and the presence of septa and Haller cells in the maxillary sinus. Results There was no significant difference for age and gender between the groups ( p = .890 and p = .879). In the UCLP-CS group, the D C , IOF-C, MW, and LNW values were significantly lower compared to the control group ( p = .034, p = .035, p = .007, p = .003, and p = .012). IOF-S values were significantly lower in the UCLP-NCS group compared to the control group ( p = .041). Conclusions Cleft conditions can affect IOC position and morphology, especially on the cleft side of UCLP patients, and should be considered during surgery or anesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cukurluoglu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: