Cleft Lip and Palate: Etiology, Epidemiology, Preventive and Intervention Strategies
Eman Allam1,2* and Cynthia Stone3
1Department of Oral Biology, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA
2Oral and Dental Research Division, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
3Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health at IUPUI, Indianapolis, IN, USA
- *Corresponding Author:
- Eman Allam
Department of Oral Biology, Indiana University School of Dentistry
1121 West Michigan Street, DS 271
Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
Received date: June 24, 2014; Accepted date: July 29, 2014; Published date: July 31, 2014
Citation: Allam E, Stone C (2014) Cleft Lip and Palate: Etiology, Epidemiology, Preventive and Intervention Strategies . Anat Physiol 4: 150. doi: 10.4172/2161-0940.1000150
Copyright: © 2014 Allam E, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Visit for more related articles at Anatomy & Physiology: Current Research
View PDF Download PDF
Cleft lip and palate represent a major public health problem due to the possible associated life-long morbidity, complex etiology, and the extensive multidisciplinary commitment required for intervention. It affects about 1.5 per 1000 live births (250,000 new cases per year) worldwide, with tremendous variations across geographic areas and ethnic groups. It is considered a debilitating condition that is associated with significant feeding, hearing, speech, and psychological impairments. The wide surgical, dental, speech, social, and medical involvement emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying determinants of these defects to allow optimizing the treatment options and predicting the long-term course of the affected individuals development. Optimal and early surgical intervention is necessary and folic acid supplementation proved to be a highly efficient preventive strategy. However, there are still many challenges to be addressed for cleft care especially in the developing parts of the world.
Cleft lip and palate; Genetics; Epidemiology; Intervention
Cleft lip and palate are considered one of the most common birth defects that possess significant medical, psychological, social, and financial implications on the affected individuals and families. Clefts have a complex etiology with both genetics and environment playing a role. Risk factors such as folic acid deficiency, maternal age, and maternal smoking have been linked to the development of clefts. In addition to the aesthetic disfigurement, a child with cleft lip and/or palate suffers substantial functional morbidity such as restricted maxillofacial growth, speech anomalies, swallowing and feeding difficulties, hearing loss and/or recurrent ear infections. Although not generally life-threatening, living with a cleft elicits a significant health burden [1,2].
Orofacial clefts (OFCs) describe a range of neonatal anomalies that involve structures around the oral cavity and may extend to the surrounding facial structures resulting in extensive craniofacial deformity. The main categories are isolated cleft palate (CP) and cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P). Both types may present either isolated or as part of a syndrome or other associated abnormalities. Affected children suffer a range of medical problems that include feeding difficulties at birth due to problems with oral seal, swallowing and nasal regurgitation, hearing difficulties due to abnormalities in the palatal musculature, and speech difficulties due to nasal escape and articulation problems. These cleft defects have a long term, adverse influence on the health and social integration of affected individuals because even though they can be surgically repaired early in childhood, residual deformity due to scarring and abnormal facial development results in continuing functional and psychosocial problems [3,4].
A multidisciplinary approach to the OFC treatment is widely accepted all over the world. The multidisciplinary team usually includes plastic surgeons, oral surgeon, otolaryngologist, speech therapist, audiologist, orthodontists, psychologist, social worker, and a specialist nurse. The optimum treatment plan includes primary surgery to close the defect, ongoing speech therapy and orthodontic plan, and secondary and tertiary surgeries to refine the initial surgical results. In most cases the primary surgery has to be planned within the first six months after birth. However, in most developing countries the shortage of the qualified surgeons and other specialists as well as financial disparities and the unavailable equipped facilities result in inappropriate case management and sometimes many OFC children even remain untreated .
CL/P is etiologically heterogeneous with both genetics and environmental contributions. With the advent of the genomics era and advances in both quantitative and molecular analysis techniques, there have been great improvements in the identification of causative genetic mutations and associations underlying syndromic forms of CL/P (Table 1). On the other hand, there is currently little progress in identifying and understanding of the genetic etiology of isolated (non-syndromic) CL/P cases [6-9].
|Cleft lip ± cleft palate (CL/P)|
|Autosomaldominant developmental malformations|
|Deafness and dystonia — ACTB|
|Familial gastric cancer and CLP — CDH1|
|Craniofrontonasal — EFNB1|
|Roberts — ESCO2|
|Holoprosencephaly — GLI2|
|Hydrolethalus — HYLS1|
|Van der Woude/popliteal pterygium — IRF6|
|Xlinked mental retardation and CL/P — PHF8|
|Gorlin — PTCH1|
|CLP, ectodermal dysplasia — PVRL1|
|Holoprosencephaly — SHH|
|Holoprosencephaly — SIX3|
|Branchiooculofacial — TFAP2A|
|Holoprosencephaly — TGIF1|
|Ankyloblepharonectodermal dysplasiaclefting — TP63|
|Tetraamelia with CLP — WNT3|
|Cleft palate only (CP)|
|Oculofaciocardiodental — BCOR|
|CHARGE — CHD7|
|Lethal and Escobar multiple pterygium — CHRNG|
|Stickler type 1 — COL2A1|
|Stickler type 3 — COL11A2|
|Desmosterolosis — DHCR24|
|Smith–Lemli–Opitz — DHCR7|
|Miller — DHODH|
|Craniofrontonasal — EFNB1|
|Crouzon — FGFR2|
|Apert — FGFR2|
|Otopalatodigital types 1 and 2 — FLNA|
|Hereditary lymphedemadistichiasis — FOXC2|
|‘Orofacialdigital’ — GLI3|
|Van der Woude/popliteal pterygium — IRF6|
|Andersen — KCNJ2|
|Kabuki — MLL2|
|Cornelia de Lange — NIPBL|
|Xâï¿½ï¿½linked mental retardation — PQBP1|
|Isolated cleft palate — SATB2|
|Diastrophic dysplasia — SLC26A2|
|Campomelic dysplasia — SOX9|
|Pierre Robin — SOX9|
|DiGeorge — TBX1|
|Treacher Collins — TCOF1|
|Midline cleft lip|
|Opitz G/BBB — MID1|
|Orofacialdigital type I — OFD1|
Table 1: Cleft associated syndromes in which the mutated gene has been identified 
A variety of genetic polymorphisms have been studied in population based association studies and candidate genes studies. Results have suggested a role for genes responsible for growth factors (e.g. TGFa, TGFß3), transcription factors (e.g. MSX1, IRF6, TBX22), factors which influence xenobiotic metabolism (e.g. CYP1A1, GSTM1, NAT2), nutrient metabolism (e.g. MTHFR, RARA), and immune response (e.g. PVRL1, IRF6). TGFa and MTHFR genes have been amongst the most widely investigated variants over the years. A comprehensive survey of chromosomal deletions and duplications was done to identify phenotypes significantly associated with particular partial aneuploidies. Regions that were significantly associated with clefts were identified at 1q25, 3p21, 4p15, 4q32 and 10p15. The 4p15 region is of particular importance in that it contains the MSX1 homeobox gene that is also the site of deletions causing the Wolf–Hirschhorn syndrome, which is commonly associated with orofacial clefting as well. Although extensively studied, due to factors such as the genetic heterogeneity, departure from Mendelian inheritance patterns, the limited availability and high cost of genomic tools, and the necessity for very large data sets, the exact genetic association, especially in non-syndromic OFC cases, remains poorly characterized [6-14].
Most of the OFC epidemiologic studies support a role for environmental factors in the etiology of clefting. The most common risk factors reported were maternal exposure to tobacco products, alcohols, nutritional deficiencies, some viral infections, medications, and teratogens in the workplace or at home in early pregnancy. Recognized teratogens included rare exposures such as phenytoin, valproic acid, thalidomide, and herbicides such as dioxin. Suggested gene-environment interactions are listed in Table 2 [14-22].
|Gene-environment interaction in cleft lip and palate|
Table 2: Currently reported gene-environment interaction in cleft lip and palate .
Some Key Epidemiological Findings
The incidence and the geographic distribution of OFC varies tremendously around the world due to differences in birth prevalence as well as the deficiencies in recording of births and birth defect surveillance systems, particularly in many parts of the developing world. Worldwide, there is a six-fold variation in the prevalence at birth of cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P), and a three-fold variation in the prevalence at birth of cleft palate as reported by the IPDTOC Working Group, 2011. Native Americans show the highest incidences at 3.74 per 1000 live births, whereas a fairly uniform incidence of 1:600 to 1:700 live births is reported among Europeans. The incidence appears high among Asians (0.82-4.04 per 1000 live births), intermediate in Caucasians (0.9-2.69 per 1000 live births) and low in Africans (0.18-1.67 per 1000 live births). Comparisons between the ethnic groups within the US and the UK related to the immigrants from Asia and China indicated that immigrants reports OFC rates closer to their original region. African Americans reported lower prevalence than whites in the US. Although data from African countries are sparse, the available evidence indicates low prevalence rates for OFCs [23-26].
Isolated CL comprises about 25% of all clefts, while combined CL/P accounts for about 45%. CL/P occurs more frequent and more severe in boys than in girls. Unilateral clefts are more common than bilateral clefts with a ratio of 4: 1, and for unilateral clefts, about 70% occur on the left side of the face. CL/P is frequently associated with other developmental abnormalities and majority of cases are presented as part of a syndrome. Syndromic clefts account for about 50% of the total cases in some reports with about 300 syndromes described. Although the percentage of cases directly linked to genetic factors is estimated to be about 40%, all clefts appear to show a familial tendency. Table 3 demonstrates the estimated birth prevalence by Global Burden of Disease (GBD) region and Figure 1 shows the EUROCAT registries data aggregated by country. It was reported that there is more than 2 to 3 fold difference in prevalence of non-syndromic, OFCs in different European parts. This ranged between 2/1,000 in Northern Europe to 1/1,000 in Italy [26-28].
|GBD region||Total OFCs/1 ,000||CP/1 ,000||CL/P/1 ,000||CP, % of total|
|Latin America, Southern||2.39||0.72||1.67||30|
|Latin America, Tropical||2.39||0.72||1.67||30|
|North America, High Income||2.00||0.83||1.17||41|
|Asia Pacific, High Income||1.65||0.64||1.00||39|
|Latin America, Central||1.54||0.39||1.15||25|
|Latin America, Andean||1.29||0.17||1.12||13|
|Sub-Saharan Africa, Central||0.54||0.04||0.51||7|
|Sub-Saharan Africa, West||0.54||0.08||0.46||15|
|Sub-Saharan Africa, Southern||0.45||0.15||0.30||33|
|Sub-Saharan Africa, East||0.38||0.12||0.27||31|
Table 3: Estimated birth prevalence of OFCs by GBD region .
There is always a problem of underreporting of OFC cases. As congenital abnormalities, they should be recorded on the birth certificates, but up till now, there is no national or international standardized protocol for this procedure. Pediatricians and nurses in the delivery room are responsible on examining the newborn and thus are expected to report any anomalies and describe them on the medical record. Misdiagnosed and undiscovered cases greatly contribute to the underreporting. A clear example for those cases are the submucous clefts, in which an intact mucosal surface covers the palatal cleft, often goes unnoticed at birth and is only discovered later when patients develop hypernasal speech. Another dilemma in the reporting of OFCs is that some studies include all births in the rate calculations while others include only live births. Since clefts are more frequent among stillborn and spontaneously aborted infants, their inclusion in the denominator impact the results significantly [29-31].
The IPDTOC Working Group, 2011 have summarized the conclusions of all recent epidemiologic data on OFC as follows [32,33]:
•There is ample evidence of the distinctly different nature of CL/P and CP, and emerging evidence of distinct differences in subgroups within these overall conditions.
•There is significant geographical variation, which is more apparent for CL/P than for CP. There is considerable variation in the proportion of OFC cases with additional congenital anomalies and syndromes.
•There is no consistent evidence of time trends, nor is there consistent variation by SES or seasonality, but these areas have not been adequately studied. There is a need to investigate such parameters within as well as between different populations.
•There is considerable international variation in the frequency of OFCs, but validity and comparability of data are adversely affected by numerous factors, among which are: source population of births considered (hospital vs. population), time period, method of ascertainment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and sampling fluctuation.
•There is little or no information on the frequency of OFCs for many parts of the globe, including parts of Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe
Prevention and Intervention Strategies
Prevention should be considered the ultimate objective for OFCs. Extensive research on the exact etiology, successful implementation of prenatal vitamins and folic acid preventive strategies, together with improvements in surgical procedures, dental and orthodontic interventions, speech pathology, social and psychological support, pediatric care, and all other fields involved in the care of the child with OFC provides a hope for a better quality of care for those children.
Several epidemiological and observational reports have indicated a protective effect of prenatal use of multivitamins and folic acid on incidence of clefts. A decrease in CL/P risk with supplements containing folic acid has ranged from 18% to 50% in humans and from 69% to 76% in experimental animals. Low maternal B6 and B12 levels measured after pregnancy was reported to increase the risk of CL/P especially in cases associated with low serum folate. Animal studies have also confirmed the anti-teratogenic effects of prenatal folic acid supplementation and dietary folate [34-36].
Treatment of CL/P is complex in nature. It requires an extreme multidisciplinary collaboration committed to managing the patient from birth to maturity. The available evidence suggests that there is a strong relationship between positive treatment outcome and the availability of centralized care by a high quality dedicated team. Diagnosis of OFC is currently possible from about 17 weeks intrauterine because of the advances in ultrasound scanning techniques; however, most of the cases are only diagnosed after birth. Services and treatment options for infants with CL/P generally vary depending on the severity of the cleft, the child’s age and medical condition, and the association with other anomalies or syndromes. In high-income settings, the surgery to repair the defect is usually planned in the first few months of life and is recommended before the age of 12-18 months. Most of the cases also require additional surgical interventions later in life. Surgical repair results in correction of the facial deformity as well as improving the feeding, speech, breathing, and hearing problems. Children later require special dental or orthodontic care, speech therapy, as well as social and psychological services. The optimal management protocol entails a range of services that need to be provided in a coordinated manner from birth into adolescence and sometimes adulthood stages [35-39].
In developing parts of the world, management of OFC patients exemplifies the health disparities and inequality. One obvious factor is the numbers of patients. Out of the estimated 250,000 child born each year with OFC, the majority are born in developing countries. The inequality is further complicated by the fact that most of them are born in rural areas where medical care is usually substandard. Most of the available reports suggest that in absence of any intervention, mortality due to OFC is very high. A study investigating tribal areas in rural India found that 'children born with cleft deformities all died within a few days of birth - they had been put to the breast but since they could not suckle they died of starvation. Spoon-feeding was unheard of and there were no visiting doctors or health workers to tell parents how to feed the infants’. A study has even indicated that in some parts of rural India, it was suspected that the birth of an infant with a highly disfiguring congenital malformation leads to “purposeful neglect”. This is also expected to be the case in other similar parts of the world where there is ample poverty and deprivation levels such as in the Sub-Saharan Africa region [28,40,41].
Cleft lip and cleft palate can have a significant impact on the health economics of countries around the world. The substantial numbers of surgical procedures that are performed each year and the complexity of the skills required to complete these procedures safely and effectively clearly presents a major burden especially in low-income countries. When surgical interventions are inaccessible, facial deformities become lifelong disabilities, exerting additional burden not only on the individual and his surroundings but on the society and the country .
The Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) debuted by the World Development Report have become the health metric of choice used to measure the mortality and physical impairment associated with an illness. It compares the cost effectiveness of competing health priorities by combining the years of life lived in a disabled health state with the number of years lost from a disease or injury. It was estimated that about 11% of the global burden of disease is caused by surgical conditions. Of this, 9% are thought to be associated with congenital anomalies. Several cost-effectiveness studies who analyzed OFC surgeries performed by the Smile for Children volunteer surgical mission team for children in developing countries indicated that the average cost of the repair surgery was in the range of $56 to $97 which is considered, based on the currently accepted international criteria, “highly cost-effective”. This claim was based on an estimate of the cost per DALY averted for OFC surgery which proved to be even less than the estimates of cost per DALY averted for a number of other standard public health programs and on the fact that the cost per DALY averted through OFC surgery is within the range of cost-effectiveness defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank [43,44].
In conclusion, OFCs impact a considerable proportion of the global society. It affects around 1.5 per 1,000 live births (about 220,000 new cases per year), with wide variation across geographic areas and ethnic groups, with substantial evidence of both health inequality and inequity. The global burden incurred from OFCs in terms of physical morbidity, health care expenses, emotional distress, and social dysfunction are significant for affected individuals, their families, and over all the society. There is also substantial variation both within and between countries. Globally, extensive research on the exact etiological factors and epidemiological data is still required to explore the most applicable attempts to decrease the burden of the disease and to improve the quality of care provided for the affected individuals.
- Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC (2009) Cleft lip and palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below Lancet 374: 1773-1785.
- Sinno H, Tahiri Y, Thibaudeau S, Izadpanah A, Christodoulou G, et al. (2012) Cleft lip and palate: an objective measure outcome study. See comment in PubMed Commons below PlastReconstrSurg 130: 408-414.
- Wong FW, King NM (1998) The oral health of children with clefts--a review. See comment in PubMed Commons below Cleft Palate Craniofac J 35: 248-254.
- Hunt O, Burden D, Hepper P, Johnston C (2005) The psychosocial effects of cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. See comment in PubMed Commons below Eur J Orthod 27: 274-285.
- Witt PD, Marsh JL (1997) Advances in assessing outcome of surgical repair of cleft lip and cleft palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below PlastReconstrSurg 100: 1907-1917.
- Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC (2011) Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. See comment in PubMed Commons below Nat Rev Genet 12: 167-178.
- Schutte BC, Murray JC (1999) The many faces and factors of orofacial clefts. See comment in PubMed Commons below Hum Mol Genet 8: 1853-1859.
- Marazita ML, Mooney MP (2004) Current concepts in the embryology and genetics of cleft lip and cleft palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below ClinPlastSurg 31: 125-140.
- Antonarakis GS, Patel RN, Tompson B (2013) Oral health-related quality of life in non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate patients: a systematic review. See comment in PubMed Commons below Community Dent Health 30: 189-195.
- Miettinen PJ, Chin JR, Shum L, Slavkin HC, Shuler CF, et al. (1999) Epidermal growth factor receptor function is necessary for normal craniofacial development and palate closure. See comment in PubMed Commons below Nat Genet 22: 69-73.
- van den Boogaard MJ, Dorland M, Beemer FA, van Amstel HK (2000) MSX1 mutation is associated with orofacialclefting and tooth agenesis in humans. See comment in PubMed Commons below Nat Genet 24: 342-343.
- Osoegawa K, Vessere GM, Utami KH, Mansilla MA, Johnson MK, et al. (2008) Identification of novel candidate genes associated with cleft lip and palate using array comparative genomic hybridization. J Med Genet 45: 81-86.
- Shi M, Mostowska A, Jugessur A, Johnson MK, Mansilla MA, et al. (2009) Identification of microdeletions in candidate genes for cleft lip and/or palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 85: 42-51.
- Murray JC (2002) Gene/environment causes of cleft lip and/or palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below Clin Genet 61: 248-256.
- Bianchi F, Calzolari E, Ciulli L, Cordier S, Gualandi F, et al. (2000) [Environment and genetics in the etiology of cleft lip and cleft palate with reference to the role of folic acid]. See comment in PubMed Commons below EpidemiolPrev 24: 21-27.
- Shaw GM, Wasserman CR, Lammer EJ, O'Malley CD, Murray JC, et al. (1996) Orofacial clefts, parental cigarette smoking, and transforming growth factor-alpha gene variants. See comment in PubMed Commons below Am J Hum Genet 58: 551-561.
- Chung KC, Kowalski CP, Kim HM, Buchman SR (2000) Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and the risk of having a child with cleft lip/palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below PlastReconstrSurg 105: 485-491.
- Murray JC, Schutte BC (2004) Cleft palate: players, pathways, and pursuits. See comment in PubMed Commons below J Clin Invest 113: 1676-1678.
- Carinci F, Scapoli L, Palmieri A, Zollino I, Pezzetti F (2007) Human genetic factors in nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate: an update. See comment in PubMed Commons below Int J PediatrOtorhinolaryngol 71: 1509-1519.
- Honein MA, Rasmussen SA, Reefhuis J, Romitti PA, Lammer EJ, et al. (2007) Maternal smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of orofacial clefts. See comment in PubMed Commons below Epidemiology 18: 226-233.
- Leslie EJ, Marazita ML (2013) Genetics of cleft lip and cleft palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 163C: 246-258.
- Vieira AR (2012) Genetic and environmental factors in human cleft lip and palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below Front Oral Biol 16: 19-31.
- Zeiger JS, Beaty TH, Liang KY (2005) Oral clefts, maternal smoking, and TGFA: a meta-analysis of gene-environment interaction. See comment in PubMed Commons below Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42: 58-63.
- Sandy JR, Williams AC, Bearn D, Mildinhall S, Murphy T, et al. (2001). Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom-the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 1: background and methodology. The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal, 38: 20-23.
- Vanderas AP (1987) Incidence of cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate among races: a review. See comment in PubMed Commons below Cleft Palate J 24: 216-225.
- IPDTOC Working Group (2011) Prevalence at birth of cleft lip with or without cleft palate: data from the International Perinatal Database of Typical Oral Clefts (IPDTOC). See comment in PubMed Commons below Cleft Palate Craniofac J 48: 66-81.
- Mossey PA, Shaw WC, Munger RG, Murray JC, Murthy J, et al. (2011) Global oral health inequalities: challenges in the prevention and management of orofacial clefts and potential solutions. See comment in PubMed Commons below Adv Dent Res 23: 247-258.
- Global registry and data base on craniofacial anomalies (2003) WHO Human Genetics Program: management of noncommunicable diseases: International Collaborative Research on Craniofacial Anomalies. Geneva, WHO.
- Mossey PA, Modell B (2012) Epidemiology of oral clefts 2012: an international perspective. See comment in PubMed Commons below Front Oral Biol 16: 1-18.
- Basseri B, Kianmahd BD, Roostaeian J, Kohan E, Wasson KL, et al. (2011) Current national incidence, trends, and health care resource utilization of cleft lip-cleft palate. See comment in PubMed Commons below PlastReconstrSurg 127: 1255-1262.
- Gosain AK, Conley SF, Marks S, Larson DL (1996) Submucous cleft palate: diagnostic methods and outcomes of surgical treatment. See comment in PubMed Commons below PlastReconstrSurg 97: 1497-1509.
- Mossey PA, Little J (2002) Epidemiology of oral clefts: an international perspective. Cleft lip and palate: from origin to treatment. 127-158.
- Mossey P, Little J (2009) Addressing the challenges of cleft lip and palate research in India. See comment in PubMed Commons below Indian J PlastSurg 42 Suppl: S9-9S18.
- Wilcox AJ, Lie RT, Solvoll K, Taylor J, McConnaughey DR, et al. (2007) Folic acid supplements and risk of facial clefts: national population based case-control study. See comment in PubMed Commons below BMJ 334: 464.
- Shaw GM, Nelson V, Carmichael SL, Lammer EJ, Finnell RH, et al. (2002) Maternal periconceptional vitamins: interactions with selected factors and congenital anomalies? See comment in PubMed Commons below Epidemiology 13: 625-630.
- Krapels IP, van Rooij IA, Ocké MC, West CE, van der Horst CM, et al. (2004) Maternal nutritional status and the risk for orofacial cleft offspring in humans. See comment in PubMed Commons below J Nutr 134: 3106-3113.
- Lee ST (1999) New treatment and research strategies for the improvement of care of cleft lip and palate patients in the new millennium. See comment in PubMed Commons below Ann Acad Med Singapore 28: 760-767.
- Oosterkamp BC, Dijkstra PU, Remmelink HJ, van Oort RP, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM, et al. (2007) Satisfaction with treatment outcome in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. See comment in PubMed Commons below Int J Oral MaxillofacSurg 36: 890-895.
- Sinko K, Jagsch R, Prechtl V, Watzinger F, Hollmann K, et al. (2005) Evaluation of esthetic, functional, and quality-of-life outcome in adult cleft lip and palate patients. See comment in PubMed Commons below Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42: 355-361.
- Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C (2005) The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. See comment in PubMed Commons below Bull World Health Organ 83: 661-669.
- Murthy J (2009) Management of cleft lip and palate in adults. Indian J PlastSurg 42: S116-S122.
- Magee WP Jr, Vander Burg R, Hatcher KW (2010) Cleft lip and palate as a cost-effective health care treatment in the developing world. See comment in PubMed Commons below World J Surg 34: 420-427.
- Alkire B, Hughes CD, Nash K, Vincent JR, Meara JG (2011) Potential economic benefit of cleft lip and palate repair in sub-Saharan Africa. See comment in PubMed Commons below World J Surg 35: 1194-1201.
- Moon W , Perry H, Baek RM (2012) Is international volunteer surgery for cleft lip and cleft palate a cost-effective and justifiable intervention? A case study from East Asia. See comment in PubMed Commons below World J Surg 36: 2819-2830.
Figure 1: Prevalence of CL/P in Europe .
- Total views: 17034
- [From(publication date):
August-2014 - Mar 14, 2018]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views : 12432
- PDF downloads : 4602
What is cleft lip and cleft palate?
We all start out life with a cleft lip and palate. During normal fetal development between the 6th and 11th week of pregnancy, the clefts in the lip and palate fuse together. In babies born with cleft lip or cleft palate, one or both of these splits failed to fuse.
A cleft means a split or separation; the palate is the roof of the mouth. A cleft palate or lip then is a split in the oral (mouth) structure. Physicians call clefting a craniofacial anomaly. A child can be born with both a cleft lip and cleft palate or a cleft in just one area. Oral clefts are one of the most common birth defects.
Clefts in the lip can range from a tiny notch in the upper lip to a split that extends into the nose. A cleft palate can range from a small malformation that results in minimal problems to a large separation of the palate that interferes with eating, speaking, and even breathing. Clefts are often referred to as unilateral, a split on one side, or bilateral, one split on each side. There are three primary types of clefts:
- Cleft lip/palate refers to the condition when both the palate and lip are cleft. About one in 1,000 babies are born with cleft lip/palate.
- About 50 percent of all clefts
- More common in Asians and certain groups of American Indians
- Occurs less frequently in African Americans
- Up to 13 percent of cases present with other birth defects
- Occurs more often in male children
- Isolated cleft palate is the term used when a cleft occurs only in the palate. About one in 2,000 babies are born with this type of cleft (the incidence of submucous cleft palate, a type of isolated cleft palate, is one in 1,200).
- About 30 percent of all clefts
- All racial groups have similar risk
- Occurs more often in female children
- Isolated cleft lip refers to a cleft in the lip only accounting for 20 percent of all clefts.
What causes clefts?
No one knows exactly what causes clefts, but most believe they are caused by one or more of three main factors: an inherited characteristic (gene) from one or both parents, environment (poor early pregnancy health or exposure to toxins such as alcohol or cocaine), and genetic syndromes. A syndrome is an abnormality in genes on chromosomes that result in malformations or deformities that form a recognizable pattern. Cleft lip/palate is a part of more than 400 syndromes including Waardenburg, Pierre Robin, and Down syndromes. Approximately 30 percent of cleft deformities are associated with a syndrome, so a thorough medical evaluation and genetic counseling is recommended for cleft patients.
How is a cleft diagnosed?
Clefting of the lip and palate is usually visible during the babys first examination. One exception is a submucous cleft where the palate is cleft, but remains covered by smooth, unbroken lining of the mouth. A child with cleft lip or palate is often referred to a multidisciplinary team of experts for treatment. The team may include: an otolaryngologist (ear, nose, and throat specialist), plastic surgeon, oral surgeon, speech pathologist, pediatric dentist, orthodontist, audiologist, geneticist, pediatrician, nutritionist, and psychologist/social worker.
How are clefts treated?
Treatment of clefts is highly individual, depending on the overall health of the child and the severity and location of the cleft(s). Multiple surgeries and long-term follow-up are often necessary. Because clefts can interfere with physical, language and psychological development, treatment is recommended as early as possible. Surgery to repair a cleft lip is usually done between 10 and 12 weeks of age. A cleft palate is repaired through a procedure called palatoplasy, which is done between nine and 18 months. Additional surgeries are often needed to achieve the best results. In addition to surgery, the child may receive follow-up care from members of the multidisciplinary team on issues of speech, hearing, growth, dental, and psychological development.
What are the complications of clefts?
The complications of cleft lip and cleft palate can vary greatly depending on the degree and location of the cleft. They can include all or some or all of the following:
Breathing: When the palate and jaw are malformed, breathing becomes difficult. Treatments include surgery and oral appliances.
Feeding: Problems with feeding are more common in cleft children. A nutritionist and speech therapist that specializes in swallowing may be helpful. Special feeding devices are also available.
Ear infections and hearing loss: Any malformation of the upper airway can affect the function of the Eustachian tube and increase the possibility of persistent fluid in the middle ear, which is a primary cause of repeat ear infections. Hearing loss can be a consequence of repeat ear infections and persistent middle ear fluid. Tubes can be inserted in the ear by an otolaryngologist to alleviate fluid build-up and restore hearing.
Speech and language delays: Normal development of the lips and palate are essential for a child to properly form sounds and speak clearly. Cleft surgery repairs these structures; speech therapy helps with language development.
Dental problems: Sometimes a cleft involves the gums and jaw, affecting the proper growth of teeth and alignment of the jaw. A pediatric dentist or orthodontist can assist with this problem.