Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study finds high parental consanguinity linked to familial recurrence and bilateral orofacial clefts in females, highlighting hereditary patterns in cleft phenotypes.
Objective To evaluate the association between parental consanguinity and cleft phenotype, family history, syndromic status, regional distribution, and sex-specific presentation among Saudi patients affected by cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Design Retrospective cross-sectional observational study. Setting Two tertiary referral centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Patients, Participants Included were 2137 patients diagnosed with cleft lip, cleft palate, or CL/P between 2014 and 2024. Patients with incomplete key variables or craniofacial anomalies unrelated to CL/P were excluded. Interventions None. Main Outcome Measures Cleft phenotype, parental consanguinity, family history of CL/P, syndromic status, regional distribution, and sex-specific cleft presentation. Results Among 2137 patients, 1291 (60.4%) were born to consanguineous parents. Cleft distribution did not differ significantly by consanguinity status. Consanguineous families had higher positive family history rates than nonconsanguineous families (40.7% vs 35.1%, P = .032), mainly due to affected extended relatives (30.1% vs 24.3%, P = .002). Bilateral CL/P was most frequent among consanguineous females (49.4%), while unilateral CL/P predominated among nonconsanguineous males (46.5%). Consanguineous cases were more frequent in Northern and Southern regions. Syndromic status was similar between groups (9.3% vs 10.4%, P = .399). Conclusions Among Saudi patients affected by CL/P, parental consanguinity was common and associated with a higher positive family history, especially among extended relatives. Bilateral CL/P was more frequent among consanguineous families, particularly females, while unilateral CL/P predominated among nonconsanguineous males. Syndromic status and cleft type by degree of consanguinity showed no significant association.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suhaym et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: