Search

The current surgical techniques used in cleft repair are well established, but different centers use different approaches. To determine the best treatment for patients, a multi-center comparative study is required. In this study, we surveyed all craniofacial departments registered with the German Society of Maxillofacial Surgery to determine which cleft repair techniques are currently in use. Our findings revealed much variation in cleft repair between different centers. Although most centers did use a two-stage approach, the operative techniques and timing of lip and palate closure were different in every center. This shows that a retrospective comparative analysis of patient outcome between the participating centers is not possible and illustrates the need for prospective comparative studies to establish the optimal technique for reconstructive cleft surgery. (c) 2018 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The current surgical techniques used in cleft repair are well established, but different centers use different approaches. To determine the best treatment for patients, a multi-center comparative study is required. In this study, we surveyed all craniofacial departments registered with the German Society of Maxillofacial Surgery to determine which cleft repair techniques are currently in use. Our findings revealed much variation in cleft repair between different centers. Although most centers did use a two-stage approach, the operative techniques and timing of lip and palate closure were different in every center. This shows that a retrospective comparative analysis of patient outcome between the participating centers is not possible and illustrates the need for prospective comparative studies to establish the optimal technique for reconstructive cleft surgery. (c) 2018 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Even though modern surgical techniques are dominating reconstructive facial procedures, the capability to use facial epitheses for reconstruction is still an important skill for the maxillofacial surgeon. We present an international multicenter analysis to clarify which techniques are used to fixate facial prostheses. We contacted all maxillofacial departments in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Norway which were registered with the German society for oral and maxillofacial surgery (DGMKG). These centers were asked via electronical mail to provide information on the type of epithesis fixation systems currently in use. The return rate from 58 departments was 43.1% (n = 25). Overall, implant fixation was the preferred fixation system (92%). Plates were the second most common fixation technique (32%). No centers reported the standard use of non-invasive fixation techniques for permanent epithesis fixation. The main retention systems in use were magnets (24/25), other retention systems are used much less often. The current preferred fixation technique for facial epitheses consists of implant-based, magnet-fixated epitheses. For nasal prostheses, a plate-based, magnet-fixated system is often used. (C) 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Even though modern surgical techniques are dominating reconstructive facial procedures, the capability to use facial epitheses for reconstruction is still an important skill for the maxillofacial surgeon. We present an international multicenter analysis to clarify which techniques are used to fixate facial prostheses. We contacted all maxillofacial departments in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Norway which were registered with the German society for oral and maxillofacial surgery (DGMKG). These centers were asked via electronical mail to provide information on the type of epithesis fixation systems currently in use. The return rate from 58 departments was 43.1% (n = 25). Overall, implant fixation was the preferred fixation system (92%). Plates were the second most common fixation technique (32%). No centers reported the standard use of non-invasive fixation techniques for permanent epithesis fixation. The main retention systems in use were magnets (24/25), other retention systems are used much less often. The current preferred fixation technique for facial epitheses consists of implant-based, magnet-fixated epitheses. For nasal prostheses, a plate-based, magnet-fixated system is often used. (C) 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: The genes Gremlin-1 (GREM1) and Noggin (NOG) are components of the bone morphogenetic protein 4 pathway, which has been implicated in craniofacial development. Both genes map to recently identified susceptibility loci (chromosomal region 15q13, 17q22) for nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL/P). The aim of the present study was to determine whether rare variants in either gene are implicated in nsCL/P etiology. Methods: The complete coding regions, untranslated regions, and splice sites of GREM1 and NOG were sequenced in 96 nsCL/P patients and 96 controls of Central European ethnicity. Three burden and four nonburden tests were performed. Statistically significant results were followed up in a second case-control sample (n=96, respectively). For rare variants observed in cases, segregation analyses were performed. Results: In NOG, four rare sequence variants (minor allele frequency <1%) were identified. Here, burden and nonburden analyses generated nonsignificant results. In GREM1, 33 variants were identified, 15 of which were rare. Of these, five were novel. Significant p-values were generated in three nonburden analyses. Segregation analyses revealed incomplete penetrance for all variants investigated. Conclusion: Our study did not provide support for NOG being the causal gene at 17q22. However, the observation of a significant excess of rare variants in GREM1 supports the hypothesis that this is the causal gene at chr. 15q13. Because no single causal variant was identified, future sequencing analyses of GREM1 should involve larger samples and the investigation of regulatory elements. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background: The genes Gremlin-1 (GREM1) and Noggin (NOG) are components of the bone morphogenetic protein 4 pathway, which has been implicated in craniofacial development. Both genes map to recently identified susceptibility loci (chromosomal region 15q13, 17q22) for nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL/P). The aim of the present study was to determine whether rare variants in either gene are implicated in nsCL/P etiology. Methods: The complete coding regions, untranslated regions, and splice sites of GREM1 and NOG were sequenced in 96 nsCL/P patients and 96 controls of Central European ethnicity. Three burden and four nonburden tests were performed. Statistically significant results were followed up in a second case-control sample (n=96, respectively). For rare variants observed in cases, segregation analyses were performed. Results: In NOG, four rare sequence variants (minor allele frequency <1%) were identified. Here, burden and nonburden analyses generated nonsignificant results. In GREM1, 33 variants were identified, 15 of which were rare. Of these, five were novel. Significant p-values were generated in three nonburden analyses. Segregation analyses revealed incomplete penetrance for all variants investigated. Conclusion: Our study did not provide support for NOG being the causal gene at 17q22. However, the observation of a significant excess of rare variants in GREM1 supports the hypothesis that this is the causal gene at chr. 15q13. Because no single causal variant was identified, future sequencing analyses of GREM1 should involve larger samples and the investigation of regulatory elements. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (NSCL/P) is one of the most common of all congenital anomalies, and has a multifactorial etiology involving both environmental and genetic factors. Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified strong association between a locus on chromosome 10q25.3 and NSCL/P in European samples. One gene at 10q25.3, the ventral anterior homeobox 1 (VAX1) gene, is considered a strong candidate gene for craniofacial malformations. The purpose of the present study was to provide further evidence that VAX1 is the causal gene at the 10q25.3 locus through identification of an excess of rare mutations in patients with NSCL/P. METHODS: The 5'UTR, complete coding regions, and adjacent splice sites of the two known VAX1 isoforms were sequenced in 384 patients with NSCL/P and 384 controls of Central European descent. Observed variants were investigated with respect to familial cosegregation or de novo occurrence, and in silico analyses were performed to identify putative effects on the transcript or protein level. RESULTS: Eighteen single-base variants were found, 15 of them rare and previously unreported. In the long VAX1 isoform, predicted functionally relevant variants were observed more often in NSCL/P cases, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.17). Analysis of family members demonstrated incomplete cosegregation in most pedigrees. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support the hypothesis that highly penetrant rare variants in VAX1 are a cause of NSCL/P. To determine whether VAX1 is the causative gene at 10q25.3 further research, in particular into the biologic function of its long isoform, is warranted. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (NSCL/P) is one of the most common of all congenital anomalies, and has a multifactorial etiology involving both environmental and genetic factors. Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified strong association between a locus on chromosome 10q25.3 and NSCL/P in European samples. One gene at 10q25.3, the ventral anterior homeobox 1 (VAX1) gene, is considered a strong candidate gene for craniofacial malformations. The purpose of the present study was to provide further evidence that VAX1 is the causal gene at the 10q25.3 locus through identification of an excess of rare mutations in patients with NSCL/P. METHODS: The 5'UTR, complete coding regions, and adjacent splice sites of the two known VAX1 isoforms were sequenced in 384 patients with NSCL/P and 384 controls of Central European descent. Observed variants were investigated with respect to familial cosegregation or de novo occurrence, and in silico analyses were performed to identify putative effects on the transcript or protein level. RESULTS: Eighteen single-base variants were found, 15 of them rare and previously unreported. In the long VAX1 isoform, predicted functionally relevant variants were observed more often in NSCL/P cases, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.17). Analysis of family members demonstrated incomplete cosegregation in most pedigrees. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support the hypothesis that highly penetrant rare variants in VAX1 are a cause of NSCL/P. To determine whether VAX1 is the causative gene at 10q25.3 further research, in particular into the biologic function of its long isoform, is warranted. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.