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
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Oct;6(4):368-381.
doi: 10.1177/2380084420964795. Epub 2020 Oct 8.

Association between Dental Anomalies and Orofacial Clefts: A Meta-analysis

T Marzouk  1   2 , I L Alves  3 , C L Wong  2 , L DeLucia  2 , C M McKinney  4 , C Pendleton  5   6 , B J Howe  6   7 , M L Marazita  8 , T K Peter  5   6 , D T Kopycka-Kedzierawski  1 , C S Morrison  9   10 , H Malmstrom  1 , H Wang  11 , E T Shope  2   9
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Association between Dental Anomalies and Orofacial Clefts: A Meta-analysis

T Marzouk et al. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether individuals with nonsyndromic orofacial clefts (OCs) display a higher frequency of dental anomalies (DAs) when compared with individuals without OCs.

Methods: A literature search of indexed databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and LILACS) was conducted without language restriction up to and including February 1, 2020. Cross-referencing was used to further identify articles. Several cleft teams across the United States and Europe were contacted to obtain unpublished data. The eligibility criteria were observational studies with original data that statistically compared individuals with OC without syndromes and those without OC on any type of DA in primary and/or permanent dentition. Random effects meta-analysis through the Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to evaluate the association between OC and DA based on odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: The literature search generated 933 records, and 75 full-text articles were reviewed. Twenty-six studies encompassing 15,213 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed statistically significant associations between OC and agenesis (OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 9.4 to 21.3), supernumerary teeth (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 3.3 to 9.7), developmental enamel defects (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.5 to 9.0), microdontia (OR, 14.8; 95% CI, 4.0 to 54.6), peg-shaped anterior teeth (OR, 12.2; 95% CI, 3.6 to 41.2), taurodontism (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.7), tooth malposition and/or transposition (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.8 to 11.5), tooth rotation (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.2), and tooth impaction (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 12.2). The OR estimates of the reviewed studies exhibited significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001). No association was observed between OC and fusion and/or gemination.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the available evidence suggests that individuals with OCs are more likely to present with a range of DAs than their unaffected peers.

Knowledge transfer statement: The findings of the current review suggest that individuals with orofacial clefts (OCs) are more likely to present with a range of dental anomalies than their unaffected peers. Understanding the association between OCs and dental anomalies is essential in guiding clinicians during treatment-planning procedures and is important in raising our awareness of the possible need for future dental treatment for patients with OCs.

Keywords: anodontia; cleft lip; cleft palate; developmental enamel defects; microdontia; supernumerary tooth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram. The search strategies, the list of excluded studies, and the reasons for exclusion are shown in the Appendix.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Forest plot shows the associations between orofacial clefts and dental anomalies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akcam MO, Evirgen S, Uslu O, Memikoglu UT. 2010. Dental anomalies in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate. Eur J Orthod. 32(2):207–213. - PubMed
    1. Allam E, Ghoneima A, Tholpady SS, Kula K.2018. Enamel hypomineralization in children with clefts and the relationship to treatment: a cross-sectional retrospective study. Ann Plast Surg. 81(5):544–547. - PubMed
    1. Ash MM.1993. Wheeler’s dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. Philadelphia (PA): Saunders.
    1. Baek SH, Kim NY. 2007. Congenital missing permanent teeth in Korean unilateral cleft lip and alveolus and unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod. 77(1):88–93. - PubMed
    1. Brook A, Jernvall J, Smith R, Hughes T, Townsend G.2014. The dentition: the outcomes of morphogenesis leading to variations of tooth number, size and shape. Aust Dent J. 59 Suppl 1:131–142. - PubMed

Publication types