The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
Morphometric Analysis of Fossa Navicularis Magna in Patients With Cleft Palate-A Retrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Devi Thounaojam Sushma, Subhas Babu G, Ajila Vidya, Mullick Bidisha
Аннотация
ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence, length, width, volume, depth, and shape of fossa navicularis magna (FNM) in patients with cleft lip/palate and comparing with healthy individuals using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).DesignThis is a retrospective study, cross-sectional study.SettingThis is institutional setting study that utilized archived CBCT scans from the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology of the institution.Patients and ParticipantsCone beam computed tomography scans of 200 participants aged 10 to 40 years, which comprised of 100 patients with cleft lip and/or palate, and 100 control participants, were used.InterventionFossa navicularis magna was evaluated and compared for its prevalence, length, width, volume, depthand shape among the normal subjects and patients with cleft lip/palate using CBCT.ResultFossa navicularis magna was detected more frequently in cleft (22%) than in control group (9%) and was statistically significant (P = .018). Although mean length, width, depth, and volume values were higher in healthy individuals, only depth was significantly greater in controls, indicating a shallow fossa in patients with cleft lip/palate (P = .033). Morphological distribution (round vs oval) was comparable between groups (P = .99).ConclusionIn the present study, FNM was more common in patients with cleft lip/palate and showed significantly reduced depth. Although oval morphology was slightly more frequent in the cleft group, it was not statistically significant. Awareness of this anatomical variant is important to avoid misinterpretation on CBCT and for better surgical planning.