Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jan-Jun;8(1):91-100.
doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_196_17.

Burden of Orofacial Clefting in India, 2016: A Global Burden of Disease Approach

Affiliations
Review

Burden of Orofacial Clefting in India, 2016: A Global Burden of Disease Approach

S M Balaji. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Jan-Jun.

Abstract

Background: In the recent past, there have been inconsistent reports of India witnessing a decreasing trend in the incidence of orofacial clefts (OFC). To date, little comprehensive evidence has been published. To identify the prevalence, associated burden in terms of epidemiological parameters and to estimate the "unmet" OFC treatment needs, the present study was undertaken.

Materials and methods: Using the Global Burden of Diseases 2016 approach and its assumptions, an attempt was made to estimate the prevalence to quantify the burden of OFC in India as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), years of life lost (YLL), and years lived with disability (YLD) as well as death due to OFC. The results from such an approach are presented. Using previous estimates of "unmet" OFC treatment needs, an attempt was made to estimate the current volume of "unmet" OFC treatment needs.

Results: In the present study, it was estimated that a total of 0.033% of all Indian population suffers from OFC. In 2016, the estimated prevalence rate/100,000 was 33.27 for males, 31.01 for females, and 32.18 combined for both genders. It was estimated that for all ages, the DALYs lost were 2.05 for 100,000 males, 2.66 for females and 2.34 for both sexes. The OFC birth prevalence model revealed that the birth prevalence (as a proportion) in 2016 in India showed an odds ratio of 0.48 (1.56-1.65) and fixed factor of nonrecording 0.83 (0.15-6.63), underreporting 0.97 (0.88-1), gender 1.09 (1.02-1.16), chromosomal diagnoses included 1.22 (1.22-1.22), and stillbirth 1.22 (1.22-1.22). The total unmet cleft treatment need was estimated at 79,430 or 18.76% of the total Indian cleft population with OFC.

Conclusions: Within the constraints of the mathematical modeling and based on all available surveys, literature, and reported data, the overall birth prevalence and the prevalence of OFC in India are presented. Till reliable data emerges, the present estimates could serve as a robust estimate of the prevalence and burden of OFC in India. The present enterprise highlights the need for well-designed, high-quality Pan-India, community-based, observational studies to accurately estimate the burden of OFC in India.

Keywords: Cleft lip; India; cleft palate; global burden of diseases; orofacial clefts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Burden of Orofacial Clefts in India 1990–2016 as Disability-Adjusted Life Years per 100,000, age standardized. (a) Males, (b) Females and (c) both genders
Figure 2
Figure 2
India-specific Orofacial Cleft Prevalence Model age-wise, 2016. (for effects, refer to Table 3) (a) Males (b) Females
Figure 3
Figure 3
India-specific Orofacial Cleft Prevalence Model, 1990–2016. (for effects, refer to Table 3 (a) Males (b) Females
Figure 4
Figure 4
India-specific Orofacial Cleft Prevalence rate (per 100,000 population), age standardized, both sexes 1990–2016
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relative risk model of India-specific Orofacial Clefts, 2016 (for effects, refer to Table 3. (a) Males (b) Females
Figure 6
Figure 6
Remission model of India-specific Orofacial Clefts, 2016 (for effects, refer to Table 3). (a) Males (b) Females
Figure 7
Figure 7
Standardized mortality ratio model of India-specific Orofacial Clefts, 2016 (for effects, refer to Table 3). (a) Males (b) Females
Figure 8
Figure 8
Indian Birth Prevalence of Orofacial Clefts (for effects, refer to Table 3). (a) age-wise, 2016 (b) 1990–2016, year-wise (gray intersects shows timeline of specific published data used in the model).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mossey PA, Modell B. Epidemiology of oral clefts 2012: An international perspective. In: Cobourne MT, editor. Cleft Lip and Palate: Epidemiology, Aetiology and Treatment. Front Oral Biology. Vol. 16. Basel: Karger; 2012. pp. 1–18. - PubMed
    1. Mossey PA, Little J, Munger RG, Dixon MJ, Shaw WC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374:1773–85. - PubMed
    1. Patil SB, Kale SM, Khare N, Math M, Jaiswal S, Jain A, et al. Changing patterns in demography of cleft lip-cleft palate deformities in a developing country: The smile train effect – What lies ahead? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:327–32. - PubMed
    1. Mossey P, Little J. Addressing the challenges of cleft lip and palate research in India. Indian J Plast Surg. 2009;42(Suppl 1):S9–18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mossey PA, Shaw WC, Munger RG, Murray JC, Murthy J, Little J, et al. Global oral health inequalities: Challenges in the prevention and management of orofacial clefts and potential solutions. Adv Dent Res. 2011;23:247–58. - PMC - PubMed