Prevalence of cleft lip and palate and associated factors in Brazil's Midwest: a single-center study

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and associated factors in patients treated at a referral service in Brazil's Midwest. Data were obtained from medical records on file between 2010 and 2017 for this epidemiologic and associational study. A descriptive analysis of the sociodemographic and clinical data was carried out, after which the data were analyzed using the chi-square test and Poisson regression with robust variance. A total of 1,696 medical records were eligible. The requests for rehabilitation were mainly for children in the early years of life, and were mostly for patients from low-income families in the state of Goiás. CL/P was more prevalent in its most severe morphological representation (cleft lip and palate), and the most frequently affected side was the left. Syndromic cleft was present in 4.1% of the cases, and the Pierre Robin sequence and Apert syndrome appeared more frequently. Adjusted multivariate Poisson regression showed an association between cleft palate and the presence of syndromes, since the prevalence was 2.33 times higher in this case than that of no syndrome. Cleft lip and palate were associated with males, whereas cleft palate was associated with females. This study highlights the importance of collecting and analyzing epidemiological data, managing health service planning, and allocating funds to assist cleft patients.

Keywords:
Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Epidemology

Introduction

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is the most prevalent congenital anomaly affecting the human face. It usually involves the lip, alveolar process, teeth and/or palate, with several degrees of severity.^1,2 Hence, some of the basic functions of individuals with CL/P may be affected, such as chewing, phonation, breathing and hearing. These people may also suffer a psychosocial impact and experience systemic health risks.^3,4

CL/P is related to genetic and environmental risk factors, which characterize a multifactorial etiology.^5,6,7 The etiology and pathogenesis of CL/P have not yet been fully explained, owing to the complexity and diversity of the molecular mechanisms involved in embryogenesis.⁶ It is estimated that the CL/P prevalence in low- and middle-income countries is 1 in 730 children born¹, but too few populational surveys have been conducted in Brazil to confirm this figure.^{8,9,10,11,12,13}

Several CL/P classification systems based on morphological and genetic aspects have been proposed.^6,9 The Spina et al.¹⁴ classification commonly adopted in Brazil uses the incisive foramen as the anatomical reference. CL/P can appear in its isolated (or nonsyndromic) form when not associated with another physical and/or developmental anomaly, or in a combined form when associated with another congenital anomaly or syndrome.^6,15 It is estimated that nonsyndromic fissures are more prevalent (70.8%) than syndromic fissures (29.2%).¹⁶

Rehabilitation is always long-term, integrated and multidisciplinary, involving dentists, plastic surgeons, pediatricians, otorhinolaryngologists, psychologists and speech therapists.¹⁷ Therefore, CL/P entails long, complex rehabilitation treatment that requires high monetary costs and highly complex care centers.

According to previous epidemiological studies, treatment charges range according to geographic distribution, ethnicity and methodology, without any absolute consensus.^{11,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27} In Brazil, there are thirty centers licenced by the Ministry of Health to treat CL/P. They are distributed according to the Brazilian regions: Southeast (n = 12), South (n = 8), Northeast (n = 5), Midwest (n =4), and North (n = 1). The Center for Rehabilitation of Cleft Lip/Palate, called CERFIS, is a public institution that is established under the National Health Service (SUS), and that operates out of the Hospital Estadual Materno-Infantil Dr. Jurandir do Nascimento, in Goiânia, state of Goiás. It is recognized as a referral service for the rehabilitation of subjects with orofacial clefts in the Midwest, since 1990. However, no study has yet been published on CERFIS patients. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of CL/P patients treated at CERFIS, and associated factors.

Methodology

The study design was retrospective, cross-sectional and single-center, following STROBE guidelines.²⁸ The research protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee at the Federal University of Goiás, and the Hospital Estadual Materno-Infantil Dr. Jurandir do Nascimento, in compliance with national ethics regulations and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study sample consisted of medical records on file at CERFIS. The inclusion criteria stipulated patients with CL/P, whether syndromic or nonsyndromic, treated between January 2010 and February 2017. Medical records that had no established diagnosis of CL/P type, or that were materially damaged or illegible were excluded from the study.

Initially, two researchers (CF-P, LANB) were trained and calibrated by piloting 100 randomly selected medical records. The agreement resulted in “almost perfect” interexaminer agreement (kappa = 0.95). The data covered sociodemographic factors (sex, age, place of birth, residence, occupation, family income, family cases of CL/P and pregnancy complications) and clinical factors (CL/P type, presence of syndrome, major or minor associated defects, and treatments performed at CERFIS). Minor defects comprise morphological abnormalities with no significant aesthetic or functional damage, whereas major defects include microcephaly, microtia, syndactyly, hydrocephalus, and others that do not fit into the category of minor defects.²⁹ The clefts were classified according to the types described in the Spina et al.¹⁴ classification, modified and updated by Silva Filho et al.³⁰ as cleft lip, cleft palate, cleft lip and palate or rare cleft, and sub-classified as complete or incomplete, and unilateral (right or left side), bilateral or median. Although the submucous cleft belongs to the CP group, it was quantified separately in the present study.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences PC version 22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, USA), and included frequency distribution and association tests. Associations between cleft type and the independent variables (sociodemographic and clinical factors) were determined using the chi-square test. All independent variables associated with the cleft type and with a p-value of less than or equal to 0.20 in the chi-square test were incorporated into the Poisson regression with robust variance, an option used to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR) in cross-sectional studies, when the dependent variable is binary³¹. The magnitude of the association of each factor was assessed using both nonadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios, respective confidence intervals (95%CI), and p-values (Wald test). Explanatory variables with a p-value of less than or equal to 0.20 in the bivariate analysis and those with theoretical relevance (irrespective of the p-value) were incorporated into the model. Variables were included one by one, and only those with a significance level of p < 0.05 were maintained in the final model. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results

A total of 3,594 medical records were on file at CERFIS, 1,803 of which referred to the treatment period from January 2010 to February 2017. In all, 107 medical records were excluded from the study, because they did not indicate the cleft type classification, leaving a total of 1,696 medical records that were analyzed.

Table 1 describes the sample characteristics, according to sociodemographic and clinical factors. Nonsyndromic CL/P was the most prevalent type of cleft, although the Pierre Robin sequence and the Apert syndrome were the most common combinations found in syndromic patients (Table 2). In terms of cleft type, the most severe morphological representation—cleft lip and palate (CLP)—was the most prevalent, and the left was the most frequently affected side (Table 3). Rare clefts were a minority, totaling 2% of the cases (Table 3).

Table 1
Clinical characteristics of the sample (n= 1,696).

Variable		n (%)	Variable		n (%)
Sex			Family income (minimum wage)
	Male	913 (53.8)		< 2	446 (25.1)
	Female	783 (46.2)		2 to 3	336 (18.9)
Age group (years)				> 3	220 (12.4)
	Newborn	20 (1.2)		Not defined	694 (39.1)
	0–6	466 (27.5)	Family cases of CL/P
	7–9	274 (16.2)		Yes	580 (32.2)
	10–14	288 (17.0)		No	1,116 (61.9)
	15–19	207 (12.2)	Pregnancy complications
	20–24	179 (10.5)		Yes	361 (21.3)
	25–64	255 (15.0)		No	1,335 (78.7)
	65 or more	6 (0.4)	Associated defects
	Absent data	2 (0.1)		Absent	1,551 (93.1)
Place of birth				Major	70 (4.1)
	Goiás non-capital municipality	495 (29.2)		Minor	31 (1.8)
	Brasília	51 (3.0)	Major and minor		16 (0.9)
	Goiânia	467 (27.5)	Syndrome
	Aparecida de Goiânia	55 (3.2)		Present	70 (4.1)
	Anápolis	106 (6.3)		Absent	1,626 (95.9)
	Other Brazilian state capitals	20 (1.2)	Primary surgeries in CERFIS
	Other non-capitals (outside Goiás state)	158 (9.3)		Cheiloplasty	357 (21.0)
	Absent data	344 (20.3)		Cheiloplasty and Palatoplasty	512 (30.2)
Residence				Cheiloplasty and Bone graft	20 (1.2)
	Goiás non-capital municipality	604 (35.6)		Cheiloplasty and Rhinoplasty	2 (0.1)
	Brasília	17 (1.0)		Palatoplasty	281 (16.6)
	Goiânia	539 (31.8)		Not performed in CERFIS	524 (30.9)
	Aparecida de Goiânia	146 (8.6)	Secondary surgeries in CERFIS
	Anápolis	102 (6.0)		Cheiloplasty	106 (6.25)
	Other Brazilian state capitals	10 (0.6)		Palatoplasty	15 (0.9)
	Other non-capitals (outside Goiás state)	58 (3.4)		Not performed in CERFIS	1,575 (92.85)
	Absent data	220 (13.0)	Multidisciplinary treatment*
Occupation				Dental	1,189 (70.1)
	No professional training	793 (46.8)		Plastic surgery	1,622 (95.6)
	Vocational degree	302 (17.8)		Speech therapy	1,562 (92.1)
	First degree	57 (3.4)		Psychological	1,597 (94.2)
	Soldier	14 (0.8)		Otorhinolaryngological	134 (7.9)
	Civil servant	29 (1.7)		Nutritional	12 (0.7)
	Student	38 (2.2)
	Absent data	463 (27.3)

• ^*
  Multidisciplinary team treatment was considered independently.

Table 2
Frequency of syndromes and other malformations (n= 70).

Syndrome/Malformation	n (%)
Pierre Robin sequence	38 (54.3)
Apert syndrome	7 (10.0)
Down syndrome - Trisomy 21	4 (5.7)
First arch syndrome	4 (5.7)
Van der Woude syndrome	3 (4.3)
Ectrodactyly	2 (2.8)
Edwards syndrome - Trisomy 18	2 (2.8)
Holoprosencephaly	2 (2.8)
Treacher Collins syndrome	2 (2.8)
Arthrogryposis	1 (1.4)
Asperger syndrome	1 (1.4)
Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome	1 (1.4)
Cornelia de Lange syndrome	1 (1.4)
Inconclusive diagnosis	2 (2.8)

Table 3
Overall and group prevalence of the different types of oral cleft (n= 1,696).

Cleft type		n (%)
Cleft lip		409 (24.1)
	Unilateral incomplete (right)	78 (4.6)
	Unilateral incomplete (left)	153 (9.0)
	Unilateral complete (right)	48 (2.9)
	Unilateral complete (left)	66 (3.9)
	Bilateral incomplete	39 (2.3)
	Bilateral complete	18 (1.0)
	Median incomplete	3 (0.2)
	Median complete	4 (0.2)
Cleft lip and palate		788 (46.4)
	Unilateral (right)	190 (11.2)
	Unilateral (left)	349 (20.5)
	Bilateral	249 (14.7)
	Median	0 (0.0)
Cleft palate		467 (27.5)
	Complete	377 (22.2)
	Incomplete	74 (4.3)
	Submucous	16 (1.0)
	Rare cleft	32 (2.0)

In the adjusted multivariate regression, CLP prevalence was 26% (PR = 1.26; 95%CI: 1.14–1.40) higher in males than in females. Otherwise, cleft palate (CP) was more prevalent in females. There was an association between CP and the presence of a syndrome, in which case the prevalence was 2.33 times (PR = 2.33; 95%CI: 1.92–2.82) higher than when there was no syndrome. Cleft lip (CL) and CLP were more prevalent in nonsyndromic patients. The rare cleft group did not yield any significant results in the chi-square test, and only sex presented a p < 0.20 in the bivariate analysis. Consequently, a multivariate analysis could not be performed (Table 4).

Table 4
Univariate and multivariate Poisson regression for association between cleft type and associated factors (n= 1,696)

Variable		Cleft Type		X2	Nonadjusted PR		Adjusted PR
		Present	Absent	p-value	95%CI	p-value	95%CI	p-value
		n (%)	n (%)
Cleft lip		n = 409	n = 1,287
Sex
	Male	173 (42.3)	610 (47.4)	0.072	1.00	0.073
	Female	236 (57.7)	677 (52.6)		1.17 (0.98-1.38)
Associated defects
	Absent	390 (95.4)	1189 (92.4)	0.095	1.00
	Major	9 (2.2)	61 (4.7)		0.52 (0.28-0.96)	0.038*
	Minor	8 (2.0)	23 (1.8)		1.04 (0.57-1.91)	0.887
	Major and minor	2 (0.5)	14 (1.1)		0.50 (0.13-1.85)	0.304
Syndrome
	Absent	402 (98.3)	1224 (95.1)	0.005*	1.00	0.012*	1.00	0.012*
	Present	7 (1.7)	63 (4.9)		0.40 (0.19-0.82)		0.40 (0.19-0.82)
Pregnancy complications
	No	321 (78.5)	1014 (78.8)	0.896
	Yes	88 (21.5)	273 (21.2)
Family cases of CL/P
No	269 (65.8)	847 (65.8)	0.988
Yes	140 (34.2)	440 (34.2)
Cleft lip and palate		n = 788	n = 908
Sex
	Male	316 (40.1)	467 (51.4)	< 0.0001*	1.00	< 0.0001*	1.00	< 0.0001*
	Female	472 (59.9)	441 (48.6)		1.28 (1.15-1.42)		1.26 (1.14-1.40)
Associated defects
	Absent	739 (93.8)	840 (92.5)	0.241
	Major	34 (4.3)	36 (4.0)
	Minor	10 (1.3)	21 (2.3)
	Major and minor	5 (0.6)	11 (1.2)
Syndrome
	Absent	772 (98.0)	854 (94.1)	< 0.0001*	1.00	0.001*	1.00	0.001*
	Present	16 (2.0)	54 (5.9)		0.48 (0.31-0.74)		0.49 (0.32-0.76)
Pregnancy complications
	No	630 (79.9)	705 (77.6)	0.247
	Yes	158 (20.1)	203 (22.4)
Family cases of CL/P
	No	514 (65.2)	602 (66.3)	0.643
	Yes	274 (34.8)	306 (33.7)
Cleft Palate		n = 467	n = 1,229
Sex
	Male	275 (58.9)	508 (41.3)	< 0.0001*	1.00	< 0.0001*	1.00	< 0.0001*
	Female	192 (41.1)	721 (58.7)		0.59 (0.51-0.70)		0.61 (0.52-0.71)
Associated defects
	Absent	421 (90.1)	1158 (94.2)	0.001*	1.00
	Major	25 (5.4)	45 (3.7)		1.33 (0.96-1.85)	0.078
	Minor	12 (2.6)	19 (1.5)		1.45 (0.92-2.27)	0.105
	Major and minor	9 (1.9)	7 (0.6)		2.11 (1.35-3.27)	0.001*
Syndrome
	Absent	422 (90.4)	1204 (98.0)	< 0.0001*	1.00	<0.0001*	1.00	< 0.0001*
	Present	45 (9.6)	25 (2.0)		2.47 (2.04-3.00)		2.33 (1.92-2.82)
Pregnancy complications
	No	356 (76.2)	979 (79.7)	0.124	1.00	0.118
	Yes	111 (23.8)	250 (20.3)		1.15 (0.96-1.37)
Family cases of CL/P
	No	312 (66.8)	804 (65.4)	0.590
	Yes	155 (33.2)	425 (34.6)

• ^*
  Significant difference; X²: Chi-square test; PR: prevalence ratio; p: probability value; CI: confidence interval

Discussion

This is the most significant study on CL/P and associated factors in patients in Goiás and surrounding states. A total of 1,696 medical records registered at a referral center between 2010 and 2017 were evaluated. Two other studies were undertaken in the Midwest prior to this study.^19,25 However, they were restricted to two states, and the sample was limited. The first study was carried out in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, and data were collected from the Craniofacial Anomaly Rehabilitation Hospital, in Bauru, São Paulo, for patients living in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul (n = 271), between 2003 and 2007.²⁵ The second study evaluated patients at a university hospital in Cuiabá, Mato Grosso (n = 313) between 2004 and 2007, and focused on the epidemiological profile without analyzing the associated factors.¹⁹ Therefore, the present study is the most recent in-depth study conducted in the Brazilian Midwest, which used the multivariate model to test the association between exposure (risk factors) and outcome (cleft type).

As in other Brazilian studies, the highest frequency of cleft types was that of CLP, followed by CP, CL and, lastly, rare clefts.^20,22,23,24 The study found a greater likelihood of the bilateral type of CL and CLP occurring on the left side. The literature is in agreement on this point, and on the likelihood of a genetic influence.^5,12,24

Complete CP—considered more severe than incomplete CP—was the most frequent subtype found in all the cases evaluated. Cymrot et al.²³ evaluated 551 children in a referral hospital in the Northeastern, and found that 128 of 130 cases of CP were the complete type. However, other Brazilian studies have reported a higher frequency of incomplete CP.^12,24 The hypothesis for a higher prevalence of complete CP can be explained by greater severity being related to a higher demand for treatment.

In terms of syndromic clefts, 70 patients (4.1%) were detected in the present study. Poisson regression results indicated that CL and CLP were associated with nonsyndromic CP, whereas the prevalence of syndromic CP was 2.33 times higher than nonsyndromic CP. Other studies also corroborated the higher frequency of syndromic cases associated with CP patients^6,12,19. Unlike the present study, Monlleó et al.²⁹ found that the syndromic cleft group outweighed the nonsyndromic cleft group. However, the authors evaluated only 141 patients, and suggested that the results could be related to the broad definition criteria used for syndromes. In addition, they reported that syndromic cases were statistically associated with CP, as also indicated in our results.

Of the syndromes with known genetic causes associated with CL/P, the Pierre Robin sequence is commonly seen in the CP type, and is associated with an altered expression of the SOX9 gene.^19,24,32 Among the syndromes or malformations identified in the present study, the Pierre Robin sequence represented 54.3% of all the cases of cleft patients and the Apert syndrome, 10%, as also reported in other studies.^19,24 Interestingly, Monlleó et al.²⁹ did not identify the Pierre Robin sequence in any of the 59.5% of syndromic patients in their sample. Tolarová and Cervenka⁶ evaluated 4,433 cases and found that the Pierre Robin sequence represented 3.0% of the total sample. In the present study, the Pierre Robin sequence represented 2.24% of the total sample, but the previous study differed from ours in that it considered this sequence to be “nonsyndromic”.⁶

In relation to sex, there was an association between CLP and males, and between CP and females; this corroborates recent studies on the epidemiological profile of clefts in South Africa and China.^33,34 These results were also similar to those for the Brazilian surveys conducted in the states of Alagoas, Ceará, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Recife, São Paulo and Sergipe.^{12,19,20,22,23,27,29}

One likely explanation for the association of CP with females is that the secondary palate of the male human embryo is more advanced in the fusion process than that of the female during the critical periods of palate formation.³⁵ Since palatal fusion is delayed in the female embryo, pregnant women are subject to a longer period of susceptibility to teratogenic factors. On the other hand, a study in the Chilean population presented evidence of an association between nonsyndromic CLP and males, owing to a variation in the MSX1 gene located in chromosome 4.³⁶

As regards patient age, the most frequent age group for CP was 0 to 6 years. One possible reason is that children with CLP usually start primary CL surgery (cheiloplasty) during the first twelve months of life, and CP surgery (palatoplasty) up to eighteen months. Thus, early childhood is a phase of multidisciplinary treatment, involving plastic surgeons, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, otorhinolaryngologists, orthodontists, speech therapists, psychologists and other professionals.^17,18

More than 90% of the CERFIS patients were followed up by plastic surgeons, speech therapists and psychologists, 70.1%, by dentists, and 0.7%, by nutritionists. This is because most patients underwent primary surgery and continued with complementary rehabilitation treatment. Despite the partially absent data (13%), patients came from different cities in Goiás (n = 852), its state capital (n = 539), and out of state (n = 85). In relation to family occupation, the prevalence of “no professional training” and a family income of fewer than 2 monthly minimum wages were reported. These results reinforce the importance of both CERFIS and the National Health Service to low-income patients and the local population, who live in cities with no referral service of cleft treatment.

In contrast to our results regarding the influence of pregnancy-related complications on cleft, other authors found incidences of alcohol consumption, smoking, hypertension, viral infections, low vitamin and mineral supplementation, use of analgesics, antibiotics and antihypertensive drugs in Brazilian women during pregnancy.⁷ The high frequency of cases of CL/P in the family and parental consanguinity is also documented in the scientific literature.⁷ These findings emphasize the importance of genetic counseling and prenatal care, especially before pregnancy and during its first quarter.

All the data collected and the possible scientific implications of the present study highlight some key points that can contribute to congenital surveillance in health systems, namely: diagnosis, classification and severity of craniofacial congenital anomaly, teratogenic factors, familial and pregnancy history, type of treatment, follow-up data, geographic distribution, data storage, and others. In addition, the characterization of the patient profile treated at the National Health Service can indicate what type of funds, should be made available—like transport assistance—to patients who live in cities outside the state capital, for example.

There are some limitations to this study. Inmuch as the data was not electronic, there were readability issues. Some of the information reported may have also been incomplete or underreported. In addition, since the study was a secondary database, it was restricted to the information on the patient's medical record; hence, no data other than those already reported by the patient could be investigated. The methodological cross-sectional type design of the study is also not the most suitable for evaluating the etiopathogenesis of CL/P. Therefore, longitudinally designed epidemiological studies are recommended to reinforce the aims of this study, and contribute to the management and planning of health services.

Conclusions

In summary, this study highlights the contribution of a National Health Service public referral center to the rehabilitation of patients with CL/P in Brazil's Midwest. It also points out the importance of collecting and analyzing epidemiological data, managing health service planning, and allocating funds to assist cleft patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff at the CERFIS and the Hospital Estadual Materno-Infantil Dr. Jurandir do Nascimento - National Health Service (SUS) for their collaboration, and CAPES for their scholarship.

References

• ¹
  Kadir A, Mossey PA, Blencowe H, Moorthie S, Lawn JE, Mastroiacovo P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the birth prevalence of orofacial clefts in low- and middle-income countries. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017 Sep;54(5):571-81. https://doi.org/10.1597/15-221
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/15-221
• ²
  Sá J, Mariano LC, Canguçu D, Coutinho TS, Hoshi R, Medrado AP, et al. Dental anomalies in a Brazilian cleft population. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016 Nov;53(6):714-9. https://doi.org/10.1597/14-303
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/14-303
• ³
  Kramer FJ, Gruber R, Fialka F, Sinikovic B, Hahn W, Schliephake H. Quality of life in school-age children with orofacial clefts and their families. J Craniofac Surg. 2009 Nov;20(6):2061-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181be8892
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181be8892
• ⁴
  Palmeiro MR, Bronstrup MB, Durham J, Walls A, Shinkai RS. Quality of life and mastication in denture wearers and cleft lip and palate adults. Braz Oral Res. 2018 Nov;32(0):e113. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0113
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0113
• ⁵
  Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Mar;12(3):167-78. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2933
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2933
• ⁶
  Tolarová MM, Cervenka J. Classification and birth prevalence of orofacial clefts. Am J Med Genet. 1998 Jan;75(2):126-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980113)75:2<126::AID-AJMG2>3.0.CO;2-R
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980113)75:2<126::AID-AJMG2>3.0.CO;2-R
• ⁷
  Silva HP, Arruda TT, Souza KS, Bezerra JF, Leite GC, Brito ME, et al. Risk factors and comorbidities in Brazilian patients with orofacial clefts. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32(0):e24. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0024
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0024
• ⁸
  Nagem Filho H, Moraes NR. Contribuição para o estudo da prevalência das más formações congênitas lábio-palatais na população escolar de Bauru. Rev Fac Odontol Sao Paulo. 1968 Apr/Jun;6(2):111-28.
• ⁹
  Loffredo LCM, Freitas JA, Grigolli AA. [Prevalence of oral clefts from 1975 to 1994, Brazil]. Rev Saude Publica. 2001 Dec;35(6):571-5. Portuguese. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102001000600011
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102001000600011
• ¹⁰
  Martelli-Junior H, Porto LV, Martelli DR, Bonan PR, Freitas AB, Coletta RD. Prevalence of nonsyndromic oral clefts in a reference hospital in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, between 2000-2005. Braz Oral Res. 2007 Oct-Dec;21(4):314-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242007000400006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242007000400006
• ¹¹
  Nunes LM, Queluz DP, Pereira AC. [Prevalence of oral cleft in Campos dos Goytacazes-RJ, 1999 – 2004]. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2007 Mar;10(1):109-16. Portuguese. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2007000100012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2007000100012
• ¹²
  Souza J, Raskin S. Clinical and epidemiological study of orofacial clefts. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2013 Mar-Apr;89(2):137-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2013.03.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2013.03.010
• ¹³
  Sousa GF, Roncalli AG. Orofacial clefts in Brazil and surgical rehabilitation under the Brazilian National Health System. Braz Oral Res. 2017 Mar;31(0):e23. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0023
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0023
• ¹⁴
  Spina V, Psillakis JM, Lapa FS, Ferreira MC. [Classification of cleft lip and cleft palate. Suggested changes]. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 1972 Jan-Feb;27(1):5-6. Portuguese.
• ¹⁵
  Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, Roth MP. Associated malformations in cases with oral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000 Jan;37(1):41-7. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(2000)037<0041:AMICWO>2.3.CO;2
  » https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(2000)037<0041:AMICWO>2.3.CO;2
• ¹⁶
  Mossey PA, Modell B. Epidemiology of oral clefts 2012: an international perspective. Front Oral Biol. 2012;16:1-18. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337464
  » https://doi.org/10.1159/000337464
• ¹⁷
  Schnitt DE, Agir H, David DJ. From birth to maturity: a group of patients who have completed their protocol management. Part I. Unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Mar;113(3):805-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000105332.57124.89
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000105332.57124.89
• ¹⁸
  Collares M, Westphalen A, Costa T, Goldin J. [Cleft lip and palate: incidence and prevalence of this pathology at the Hospital de Clínicas, Porto Alegre, RS-Brazil]. Rev AMRIGS. 1995 Jul-Sep;39(3):183-8. Portuguese.
• ¹⁹
  Cuozzo FD, Espinosa MM, Silva KT, Barros YB, Bandeca MC, Aranha AM, et al. Cleft lip and palate in a Brazilian subpopulation. J Int Oral Health. 2013 Aug;5(4):15-20.
• ²⁰
  Coutinho AL, Lima MC, Kitamura MA. Ferreira Neto J, Pereira RM. [Epidemiological characteristics of patients with orofacial clefts attending a Referral Center in Northeast Brazil]. Rev Bras Saúde Mater Infant. 2009 Apr-Jun;9(2):149-56. Portugese. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-38292009000200004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-38292009000200004
• ²¹
  Furlaneto EC, Pretto SM. Epidemiological study of the patients from the center for facial abnormalities of Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul. Rev Odonto Ciênc. 2000 Jun;15(29):39-46.
• ²²
  Freitas JA, Dalben GS, Santamaria M Jr, Freitas PZ. Current data on the characterization of oral clefts in Brazil. Braz Oral Res. 2004 Apr-Jun;18(2):128-33. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242004000200007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242004000200007
• ²³
  Cymrot M, Sales F CD, Teixeira F AA, Teixeira Junior FA, Teixeira GS, Cunha Filho JF, et al. [Prevalence of kinds of cleft lip and palate at a Pediatric Hospital in Northeast of Brazil]. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2010 Nov;25(4):648-51. Portuguese. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-51752010000400015
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-51752010000400015
• ²⁴
  Cerqueira MN, Teixeira SC, Naressi SC, Ferreira AP. [Occurrence of lip and palate clefts in the city of São José dos Campos-SP]. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;8(2):161-6. Portuguese. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2005000200008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2005000200008
• ²⁵
  Gardenal M, Bastos PRHO, Pontes ERJC, Bogo D. Predominance of orofacials fissure diagnosed in refference service in resident cases in Mato Grosso do Sul State. Intl Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011 Apr/May/Jun;15(2):133-41. Portuguese. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1809-48722011000200003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1809-48722011000200003
• ²⁶
  Martelli DRB, Machado RA, Swerts MSO, Rodrigues LAM, Aquino SN, Martelli Júnior H. Non sindromic cleft lip and palate: relationship between sex and clinical extension. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed). 2012 Oct;78(5):116-20. https://doi.org/10.5935/1808-8694.20120018
  » https://doi.org/10.5935/1808-8694.20120018
• ²⁷
  Luiza A, Góis DN, Santos JA, Oliveira RLB, Silva LCF. A descriptive epidemiology study of oral cleft in sergipe, Brazil. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Oct;17(4):390-4. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1352502
  » https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1352502
• ²⁸
  Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007 Nov;18(6):800-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654
• ²⁹
  Monlleó IL, Barros AG, Fontes MI, Andrade AK, Brito GM, Nascimento DL, et al. Diagnostic implications of associated defects in patients with typical orofacial clefts. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2015 Sep-Oct;91(5):485-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2014.12.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2014.12.001
• ³⁰
  Silva Filho OG, Ferrari Júnior FM, Rocha DL. Freitas JAS. [Classification of cleft lip and palate: brief review, clinical considerations and suggestion of modification]. Rev Bras Cir. 1992 Mar/Apr;82(2):59-65. Portuguese.
• ³¹
  Coutinho LMS, Scazufca M, Menezes PR. [Methods for estimating prevalence ratios in cross-sectional studies. Rev Saude Publica. 2008 Dec;42(6):992-8.
• ³²
  Leslie EJ, Marazita ML. Genetics of cleft lip and cleft palate. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2013 Nov;163C(4):246-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31381
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31381
• ³³
  Luo YL, Wang W, Gao XH, Huang YH, Xu Q, Cheng YL. Birth prevalence of orofacial clefts among perinatal infants: a register-based study in Bao'an district, Shenzhen, China. Birth Defects Res. 2019 Apr;111(7):353-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1467
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1467
• ³⁴
  Hlongwa P, Levin J, Rispel LC. Epidemiology and clinical profile of individuals with cleft lip and palate utilising specialised academic treatment centres in South Africa. PLoS One. 2019 May;14(5):e0215931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215931
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215931
• ³⁵
  Burdi AR, Silvey RG. Sexual differences in closure of the human palatal shelves. Cleft Palate J. 1969 Jan;6:1-7.
• ³⁶
  Blanco R, Chakraborty R, Barton SA, Carreño H, Paredes M, Jara L, et al. Evidence of a sex-dependent association between the MSX1 locus and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate in the Chilean population. Hum Biol. 2001 Feb;73(1):81-9. https://doi.org/10.1353/hub.2001.0002
  » https://doi.org/10.1353/hub.2001.0002

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  26 Apr 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  02 Feb 2020
• Reviewed
  21 Sept 2020
• Accepted
  09 Dec 2020