Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sub-epithelial defects (i.e., discontinuities) of the superior orbicularis oris (OO) muscle appear to be a part of the phenotypic spectrum of cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL ± P). Analysis of the OO phenotype as a clinical tool is hypothesized to improve familial recurrence risk estimates of CL ± P. Study subjects (n = 3,912) were drawn from 835 families. Occurrences of CL ± P were compared in families with and without members with an OO defect. Empiric recurrence risks were calculated for CL ± P and OO defects among first-degree relatives (FDRs). Risks were compared to published data and/or to other outcomes of this study using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. In our cohort, the occurrence of CL ± P was significantly increased in families with OO defects versus those without (P < 0.01, OR = 1.74). The total FDR recurrence of isolated OO defects in this cohort is 16.4%; the sibling recurrence is 17.2%. The chance for one or more FDRs of a CL ± P proband to have an OO defect is 11.4%; or 14.7% for a sibling. Conversely, the chance for any FDR of an individual with an OO defect to have CL ± P is 7.3%; or for a sibling, 3.3%; similar to published recurrence risk estimates of nonsyndromic (NS) CL ± P. This study supports sub-epithelial OO muscle defects as being part of the CL ± P spectrum and suggests a modification to recurrence risk estimates of CL ± P by utilizing OO defect information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klotz et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: