These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dentomaxillofacial variability of cleidocranial dysplasia: clinicoradiological presentation and systematic review.
    Author: Golan I, Baumert U, Hrala BP, Müssig D.
    Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):347-54. PubMed ID: 15070835.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological presentation of cleidocranial dysplasia (CCD) in our patient group and to compare them with other reported cases by a systematic review (SR) of the literature. METHODS: The study comprises two elements, a complete series of all diagnosed patients at the Center for Craniofacial Genetics at the University of Regensburg, Germany, and a SR. Relevant literature was identified by electronic databases, review of citation lists and hand searching of key journals. The principal selection criterion was that the study should contain as many pertinent cases as possible. The presented signs and symptoms were assigned to the following categories: "supernumerary teeth", "failure of eruption", "hypoplastic maxilla" and "clavicular sign". Additionally, the family history was taken into account. RESULTS: From the 410 English, German or French articles, 40 single case presentations and 17 multiple case studies remained that met the selection criteria. This report reviews the data of 283 patients with CCD including our own patient cohort of 24 individuals. Dental signs such as supernumerary teeth and eruption failure were expressed in over 93.5%. Skeletal symptoms such as hypoplastic maxilla and the clavicular sign were exhibited in over 84.3%. The prevalence of spontaneous mutations differs slightly when comparing the single case studies (72.0%) with our patient data (58.3%). The fraction of spontaneous mutations in multiple case studies was 5.0%. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of CCD can be difficult when typical features are not clearly expressed. Since the multiple case studies concentrated on specific clinical aspects, an overall ranking including all associated findings was not possible. Owing to their prevalence, we recommend referencing to the described list of clinical signs as major symptoms for the pathognomy in CCD, since they are infrequent in other conditions and in the general population. To categorize the expression of CCD, more interdisciplinary studies are necessary. Nevertheless, a subjective classification is possible according to the related restrictions in the patients' quality of life.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]