Skip to main content
Download PDF

Detection and diagnosis of cleidocranial dysplasia by panoramic radiography: a retrospective study

BMC Oral Health volume 22, Article number: 558 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Cleidocranial dysplasia (CCD) is a rare and underdiagnosed congenital disorder in dentistry. The purpose of this study was to illustrate and quantify the maxillofacial bone abnormalities detected on panoramic radiographs from a relatively large retrospective case series and to provide a series of diagnostic references for dentists to indicate the presence of disease and help in making an early and accurate diagnosis.

Methods

The dental panoramic radiographs of thirty CCD patients aged 11 to 45 years (18 males and 12 females) were examined retrospectively. The dentition states, including supernumerary teeth and impacted teeth, were recorded. Twelve quantified measurements were adopted to determine the abnormalities of maxillofacial bones, including the degree of the zygomatic arch downward bend, bicondylar breadth, ramal height, mandibular height, mandibular aspect ratio, mandibular body height, condylar height, coronoid height, distance between the coronoid process and the condyle, bigonial width, gonial angle and best-fit gonial circle diameter. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the findings of the CCD patients with those of their matched controls (n = 300).

Results

Supernumerary teeth were detected in 27 patients (90.0%), and all 30 patients presented impacted teeth. Compared to the matched controls, the CCD patients had a significantly larger degree of zygomatic arch downward bend (ZAD), a larger diameter of the best-fit gonial circle (BGC), and a shorter distance between the coronoid process and the condyle (DCC) in panoramic radiographs (P < 0.001). According to the reference cutoff values established from the 5th or 95th percentile of the measurements in the control group, ZAD higher than 6.90 mm, DDC less than 22.37 mm and BGC higher than 52.41 mm were significantly associated with the CCD features identified. Other panoramic measurements were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Panoramic radiographs had great value in the diagnosis of CCD. In this study, we identified some dental and maxillofacial features on panoramic radiographs from a relatively large retrospective case series of CCD. A series of reliable quantitative indicators were provided for dentists that can indicate the presence of disease and improve the diagnostic specificity.

Peer Review reports

Background

Cleidocranial dysplasia (CCD) is a rare and underdiagnosed congenital disorder that primarily affects the development of bones and teeth. Currently, the disease still lacks a pathognomonic “gold standard” due to its phenotypic variability. The clinical diagnosis can be made based on a set of physical and radiological characteristics, which include underdeveloped or absent clavicles, delayed closure of fontanelles, and dental and maxillofacial abnormalities [1, 2]. As the most well-known genetic predisposing factor for this disease, mutational analysis of the Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) gene may be utilized for diagnostic confirmation [3,4,5]. However, not all RUNX2 mutations are identified on standard DNA sequencing. In patients with a clinical diagnosis of CCD, the RUNX2 mutations are detected in about 60–70%. The genetic conditions in the remaining 30–40% of the cases are still unknown [1, 6, 7]. For dentists the diagnosis can be more difficult because the limited availability of diagnostic modality in most of the dental institutions.

Patients with CCD commonly present with symptoms of deciduous tooth retention, delayed eruption of permanent dentition, and supernumerary teeth. Hence, dentists are often the first health professionals to encounter patients with the potential diagnosis. In most cases, panoramic radiographs are often used as the initial evaluation image, which has the particular advantages of a low radiation dose and broad coverage of the jaws [8]. In addition to the evaluation of the dentition, panoramic radiography can also provide the visualization of adjacent structures, such as the mandible, maxilla, zygomatic bone and temporo-mandibular joints. For dentists, whether panoramic radiography can provide a responsible assessment of CCD is a key question.

Although several studies have described panoramic features of CCD, most of them based on only a few cases, and no study has had standardized measurements and quantitative indicators [1, 9,10,11]. The aim of this study was to summarize the major maxillofacial features detected on panoramic radiographs from a relatively large retrospective case series of CCD. Some reliable quantitative indicators that can indicate the presence of disease and help with early diagnosis were presented as the diagnostic reference for dentists.

Methods

Patients

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Stomatology, Chengdu, China (WCHSIRB-D-2021-014).

The data records of 30 patients (18 males and 12 females; mean age, 20.53 ± 7.98 years; range, 11–45 years) who were clinically and radiologically diagnosed with CCD were retrospectively collected. Clinical and radiographic data records from December 2013 to December 2020 were obtained from our in-house database. By reviewing health record clinical notes and radiology reports, the patient had a diagnosis of CCD based on (1) Apposed shoulders or deficient clavicles observed on chest radiography. (2) Delayed closure of fontanelles and/or Wormian bone in the cranial suture observed on skull projection. (3) Multiple impacted permanent teeth and/or supernumerary teeth observed on dental radiography. In eight cases, genetic analysis and/or familial hereditary characteristics allowed confirmation of CCD diagnosis. Any patient with orthodontic treatment and maxillofacial surgical treatment that produced morphologic changes of maxillofacial bones, or radiographs presented with inadequate diagnostic quality or incomplete visualization of necessary structures were excluded from enrollment.

For the comparison of quantitative data between CCD patients and healthy individuals, a matched control group was recruited from our picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and all panoramic radiographs were suitable for measurements. To improve the study reliability, the inclusion criteria of the matched control group were based on the following matching factors: age at the time of panoramic examination, sex, the type of panoramic machine used and exposure parameters. Exclusion criteria for the matched control group were: congenital defect or systemic disease, maxillofacial deformities, orthodontic treatment. Verification of inclusion and exclusion criteria was ensured by reviewing the health records. Because the sample size in the case group was limited (n = 30), we appropriately increased the sample size in the control group (1 case: 10 matched controls), which can minimize the influence of outliers or extreme observations and provide greater statistical power.

All measurements were obtained using the PACS calibration system.

Panoramic analysis

The case images were captured by various equipment models, including Orthoceph OC200D (Instrumentarium Dental, Tuusula, Finland) at 60 kV, 8.0 mA; PaX-400C (VATECH, Hwaseong, Korea) at 73 kV, 10 mA; and Veraviewepocs (Morita, Kyoto, Japan) at 65 kV, 6 mA and PaX-i (VATECH, Hwaseong, Korea) at 73 kV, 10 mA. It should be noted that the images of the matched controls were captured with the same equipment and parameters as the images of their corresponding case.

Dentition states

All panoramic radiographs were recalled to evaluating the states of the dentition. The number and location of the supernumerary teeth and the ratio of impacted or delayed eruption of permanent teeth (except the third molar and supernumerary teeth) were recorded. The impaction and delay of eruption are defined here as the tooth fail to emerge through the top of the alveolar process within normal age range [12].

Image measurements

A series of panoramic measurements were taken, as described in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The measurements were taken by three investigators. The inter-observer reliability was highly satisfactory, with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) greater than 0.82. The CCD group was measured by each investigator. The control group was divided into three parts and each part was measured by an investigator, respectively.

Table 1 Measurements in panoramic radiograph evaluation
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The schematic measuring methods for the panoramic measurements. a Cropped zygomatic area indicated the method to measure the ZRD value b Cropped upper ramus area indicated the method to measure the CrH, DCC and CdH value c Panoramic radiography of a CCD patient indicated the method to measure the BCW, RH, MH, BGW, BGC, GA and MBH value. ZRD the degree of the zygomatic arch downward bend; CrH coronoid height; DCC the distance between coronoid process and condyle; CdH condylar height; BCW bicondylar width; RH ramal height; MH mandibular height; BGW bigonial width; BGC best-fit gonial circle diameter; GA gonial angle; MBH mandibular body height

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Measurements of panoramic radiographs were compared between CCD patients and matched controls using the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test because not all variables were normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk tests). The P value threshold was set to 0.05. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS software (ver. 19.0 for Windows; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

Results

Dentition states

A total of 184 supernumerary teeth were detected in 27 patients (90.0%). The number of supernumerary teeth ranged from 1 to 15, with a mean of 6.8. Regarding the location of these supernumerary teeth, 17 patients (63.0%) presented supernumerary teeth in the incisor region, 27 patients (100.0%) in the premolar region, and 5 patients (18.5%) in the molar region.

All patients presented impacted or delayed eruption of some permanent teeth. The number ranged from 2 to 22, with a mean of 11.0. The distribution of these anomalies in different tooth regions is shown in Fig. 2. The lower first premolar (75%) and upper canine (71.7%) were the most frequently impacted teeth. The impaction of the first molar was rare and was present in only one patient.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of the impacted or delayed eruption of permanent teeth in different tooth regions

Full size image

Image measurements

The statistical results of measurements in panoramic radiographs are listed in Table 2. Regarding the study design, age and sex were similar between the two groups.

Table 2 Comparison of panoramic measurements between the CCD group and the control group
Full size table

In our study, all 30 CCD patients with panoramic radiographs showed a downward slope of the zygomatic arch. The degrees of the downward bend between the CCD group and the control group were compared, and both the left and right zygomatic arch were significantly deeper in the CCD group than in the control group (p < 0.001). In the CCD group, the mean values of ZAD on the left and right sides were 13.25 mm and 13.21 mm, respectively; in the control group, these values were 3.62 mm and 3.64 mm. (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The ZAD observed in the panoramic radiograph. a ZAD in a CCD patient b normal ZAD in a matched control. The dotted line drawn from the porion to the orbitale indicates the Frankfort line

Full size image

A comparison of mandibular panoramic measurements revealed that DCC and BGC were significantly different between the two groups. (p < 0.001, Fig. 4). In the CCD group, the mean value of DCC was 22.98 mm on the left side and 24.70 mm on the right side; in the control group, these values were 29.17 mm and 30.10 mm, respectively. The measurement of BGC indicated the difference in the curvature of the mandibular angle region (Fig. 4c–f). The mean values of the left and right sides in the CCD group were 60.32 mm and 60.01 mm, respectively; these values in the control group were 37.07 mm and 37.79 mm, respectively. Other panoramic measurements were not significantly different between the two groups.

Fig. 4
figure 4

DCC and BGC as observed in a panoramic radiograph. a DCC in a CCD patient. b Normal DCC in a matched control. c BGC in a CCD patient. d Normal BGC in a matched control. e Schematic representation of the lower curvature of the gonial region in CCD patients. f Schematic representation of the normal curvature of the gonial region in matched controls

Full size image

Furthermore, Fig. 5a–c depicts the percentage frequency distributions of the ZAD, DCC and BGC values on both the left and right sides via a histogram with a rug plot. The figure indicates that the data range was significantly different between the CCD and control groups. According to the data, the reference cutoff values were established based on the 5th or 95th percentile of the measurements in the control group. The reference cutoff values of ZAD, DCC and BGC were 6.90 mm (upper limit), 22.37 mm (lower limit) and 52.41 mm (upper limit), respectively. In the CCD group, all ZAD values were higher than 6.90 mm, 46.67% of DCC values were less than 22.37 mm, and 83.33% of BGC values were higher than 52.41 mm.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Percentage frequency distribution of 3 panoramic measurement values in the CCD and control groups. a Distribution of ZAD values. b Distribution of DCC values. c Distribution of BGC values. The dotted line indicates the reference cutoff value

Full size image

Discussion

The characteristic manifestations of CCD are skeletal anomalies and irregular dentition [13, 14]. Therefore, some patients who have not yet been diagnosed choose to consult a dental specialist when they perceive their unusual teeth and facial profile. For these patients, dental radiographs can provide valuable diagnostic information. In addition, an early diagnosis will increase opportunities for patients to choose appropriate treatment, to manage complications and to receive genetic counseling [1, 15].

In our study, the presence of supernumerary teeth and impacted teeth were found in 90% and 100% of cases, respectively. Supernumerary teeth and impacted teeth are characteristic feature of CCD patients but exhibits considerable variance, differing in number and position. Meanwhile, the prevalence of non-syndromic supernumerary teeth in Chinese ranges from 1.5 to 10.52%, and 22.15–36.34% patients had multiple supernumerary teeth [16,17,18]. The prevalence of impacted permanent teeth except the third molar ranges from 6.15 to 8.56% in Chinese [19, 20]. Since these dentition states are not infrequent in the general population, the dentists need more reliable symptoms to improve the diagnostic specificity. The disturbance of intramembranous ossification is regarded as a responsible pathophysiology mechanism of CCD [21]. Therefore, the maxillofacial bone findings are more direct and stable features.

For the first time, this study adopted a series of quantitative assessments in panoramic radiographs to compare the maxillofacial bone features of CCD patients with those of their matched controls. Panoramic radiography enables the visualization of the entire maxillomandibular region on a single film and is commonly used for general dental health evaluation. Panoramic radiography was the most commonly utilized radiographic technique by clinicians when they encountered patients with abnormal dentition [22,23,24,25]. There are some inherent problems, such as unequal magnification and image distortion, in panoramic radiographs that can affect the measurements. To attain comparable accuracy, (1) all radiographs included in the study were of excellent diagnostic quality, and (2) each patient had matched controls with the same scanning parameters. Furthermore, the panoramic measurements in the present study, including vertical measurements in the whole area and angular and horizontal measurements in the posterior region, can be obtained with suitable replicability and reliability, which has been revealed by previous studies [26,27,28].

This study elucidated that the morphology of the zygomatic arch in panoramic radiographs was significantly abnormal in CCD patients. This is in agreement with previous case reports and literature reviews demonstrating that the zygomatic arch may be thin or even discontinuous and has a characteristic downward bend [11, 29,30,31]. In our study, the Frankfurt line, which has been revealed to have a relatively constant position with the zygomatic arch, was used as the reference line to identify the degree of the zygomatic arch bending downward [32]. The results showed that the ZAD of CCD patients was much larger than that of matched controls, which may be caused by hypoplastic zygomaticotemporal junctions (weak zygomaticotemporal suture) and masseter muscle contraction. The results of measurements in the mandibular angle region further confirm our hypothesis. The masseter muscle originates from the zygomatic arch and extends down to the mandibular angle. Because the patients’ zygomatic arch cannot effectively counter masticatory stress, the vertical component of masseteric force would entail apparent bending of the zygomatic arch. Meanwhile, the masseteric force acting on the mandibular angle region would decrease because of the unstable upper anchorage of the muscle, which can influence the morphology of the mandible in masseteric attachment regions. In our study, the angle measurement (GA) and curvature measurement (BGC) were used to express the morphology of this region. Although there was no statistically significant difference in GA, the CCD patients exhibited a significantly larger BGC with lower curvature, which can reveal morphological anomalies of the mandibular gonial region (Fig. 4e, f). Masseter muscle hypofunction may contribute to this manifestation. The interpretation may be supported by the findings of several soft tissue studies, which revealed a masseter muscle volume reduction in CCD patients [33, 34]. Some clinical case reports revealed their CCD patients present with muscle weakness [35, 36]. Moreover, loss of Runx2 results in reduced expression of pro-myogenic secreted factors, such as Aldh1a2, Igf1, Cxcl12, and Cthrc1, which may affect muscle proliferation and differentiation in mouse model [37]. In our study, it was hypothesized that features on panoramic radiographs were not only determined by bone dysplasia but also influenced by muscle hypofunction. However, the evidence of masticatory muscle electromyographic activity and myopathic changes merits future study.

Another linear measurement (DCC) also showed significant associations with the disease. The results revealed that patients tend to have a narrow ramus. Masticatory muscle function is regarded as one of the determinants of mandibular shape [38]. A previous finding indicated that mandibles with smaller muscle force were characterized by a tall and narrow ramus (more like a parallelogram) [39].

In a clinical setting, when there are several impacted permanent teeth and/or supernumerary teeth on panoramic radiography with diagnostic uncertainty, the contour of the mandible and zygomatic arch should be emphasized. If the characteristic U-shaped mandible and curved zygomatic arch are observed, the ZAD, BGC and DDC values should be measured for comparison with our reference cutoff values.

Regarding the treatment of CCD, surgical-orthodontic traction and orthognathic surgery are the preferred treatments for serious functional and esthetic problems [2, 40, 41]. Nevertheless, previous studies did not consider muscle function as the possible mechanism of osseous changes in CCD. The reconstruction of muscular stability and force balance (e.g., enhancing the strength of the zygomatic arch buttresses) may play an essential role in improving the efficiency of occlusal adjustments and the stability of treatment and esthetic changes. Further study is needed to clarify this possibility.

Our study demonstrated panoramic radiographs had great value in the diagnosis of CCD. However, because of the limitations of 2D images, the limited field of view, magnification, distortion and superposition may adversely affect during clinical implementation. Future work should consider performing more 3D imaging analyses that can comprehensively characterize CCD anomalies.

Conclusion

Although phenotypic expression can vary from individual to individual, data from the present study demonstrated that CCD patients have some maxillofacial manifestations that can be detected on panoramic radiographs. These features are easy to measure and relatively reliable and therefore may provide valuable information to dentists, particularly in the early diagnosis and timely management of CCD. The possible mechanism of these skeletal features should be considered, as they relate to muscular morphology and strength.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the clinical data of all participants in this study belongs to West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University and we need to obtain the approval of the hospital’s medical department when obtaining it but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CCD:

Cleidocranial dysplasia

RUNX2:

Runt-related transcription factor 2

PACS:

Picture archiving and communication system

References

  1. Farrow E, Nicot R, Wiss A, Laborde A, Ferri J. Cleidocranial dysplasia: a review of clinical, radiological, genetic implications and a guidelines proposal. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):382–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhu Y, Zou Y, Yu Q, Sun H, Mou S, Xu S, et al. Combined surgical-orthodontic treatment of patients with cleidocranial dysplasia: case report and review of the literature. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hordyjewska-Kowalczyk E, Sowińska-Seidler A, Olech EM, Socha M, Glazar R, Kruczek A, et al. Functional analysis of novel RUNX2 mutations identified in patients with cleidocranial dysplasia. Clin Genet. 2019;96(5):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mundlos S, Otto F, Mundlos C, Mulliken J, Aylsworth A, Albright S, et al. Mutations involving the transcription factor CBFA1 cause cleidocranial dysplasia. Cell. 1997;89(5):773–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu D, Liu Y, Zhang X, Wang Y, Zhang C, Zheng S. An exploration of mutagenesis in a family with cleidocranial dysplasia without mutation. Front Genet. 2021;12:748111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang Y, Duan X. A novel 90-kbp deletion of RUNX2 associated with cleidocranial dysplasia. Genes. 2022;13(7):1128.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Thaweesapphithak S, Saengsin J, Kamolvisit W, Theerapanon T, Porntaveetus T, Shotelersuk V. Cleidocranial dysplasia and novel RUNX2 variants: dental, craniofacial, and osseous manifestations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2022;30: e20220028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. 7th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences: Canada; 2014. p. 166–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ha SW, Jung YJ, Bae HS, Ryoo HM, Cho IS, Baek SH. Characterization of dental phenotype in patients with cleidocranial dysplasia using longitudinal data. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(4):416–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Symkhampha K, Ahn GS, Huh KH, Heo MS, Lee SS, Kim JE. Radiographic features of cleidocranial dysplasia on panoramic radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent. 2021;51(3):271–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pan CY, Tseng YC, Lan TH, Chang HP. Craniofacial features of cleidocranial dysplasia. J Dent Sci. 2017;12(4):313–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ash MM, Nelson SJ. Wheeler’s dental anatomy, physiology, and occlusion. 9th ed. St. Louis, Saunders: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2010. p. 282.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jirapinyo C, Deraje V, Huang G, Gue S, Anderson PJ, Moore MH. Cleidocranial Dysplasia: Management of the Multiple Craniofacial and Skeletal Anomalies. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(4):908–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berkay EG, Elkanova L, Kalaycı T, Uludağ Alkaya D, Altunoğlu U, Cefle K, et al. Skeletal and molecular findings in 51 Cleidocranial dysplasia patients from Turkey. Am J Med Genet A. 2021;185(8):2488–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Inchingolo AD, Patano A, Coloccia G, Ceci S, Inchingolo AM, Marinelli G, et al. Genetic Pattern, Orthodontic and Surgical Management of Multiple Supplementary Impacted Teeth in a Rare, Cleidocranial Dysplasia Patient: A Case Report. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(12):1350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chou S-T, Chang H-P, Yang Y-H, Lung C-Y, Tseng Y-C, Pan C-Y, et al. Characteristics of supernumerary teeth among nonsyndromic dental patients. J Dent Sci. 2015;10(2):133–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jiang Y, Ma X, Wu Y, Li J, Li Z, Wang Y, et al. Epidemiological, clinical, and 3-dimentional CBCT radiographic characterizations of supernumerary teeth in a non-syndromic adult population: a single-institutional study from 60,104 Chinese subjects. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(12):4271–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma X, Jiang Y, Ge H, Yao Y, Wang Y, Mei Y, et al. Epidemiological, clinical, radiographic characterization of non-syndromic supernumerary teeth in Chinese children and adolescents. Oral Dis. 2021;27(4):981–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hou R, Kong L, Ao J, Liu G, Zhou H, Qin R, et al. Investigation of impacted permanent teeth except the third molar in Chinese patients through an X-ray study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(4):762–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Deng X. A Retrospective Study of the Condition of Impacted Teeth [Master dissertation]. China: Fourth Military Medical University; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mitomo K, Matsunaga S, Kitamura K, Nakamura T, Saito A, Komori T, et al. Sphenoid bone hypoplasia is a skeletal phenotype of cleidocranial dysplasia in a mouse model and patients. Bone. 2019;120:176–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Snel R, Van De Maele E, Politis C, Jacobs R. Digital dental radiology in Belgium: a nationwide survey. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(8):20180045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sklavos A, Beteramia D, Delpachitra SN, Kumar R. The panoramic dental radiograph for emergency physicians. Emerg Med J. 2019;36(9):565–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leite AF, Gerven AV, Willems H, Beznik T, Lahoud P, Gaêta-Araujo H, et al. Artificial intelligence-driven novel tool for tooth detection and segmentation on panoramic radiographs. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):2257–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tugnait A, Clerehugh V, Hirschmann PN. Radiographic equipment and techniques used in general dental practice: a survey of general dental practitioners in England and Wales. J Dent. 2003;31(3):197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Abuhijleh E, Warreth A, Qawadi M, Abdulrida E, Radaideh A, Al Taki A, et al. Mandibular gonial angle measurement as a predictor of gender-a digital panoramic study. Open Dent J. 2019;13(1):399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Coskun E, Kocak TN. Successful dental implantation: evaluating the accuracy of horizontal and vertical measurements on panoramic radiographs using dental implants as reference objects. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2021;70(6):269–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stramotas S, Geenty JP, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Accuracy of linear and angular measurements on panoramic radiographs taken at various positions in vitro. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(1):43–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeom H-G, Park W-J, Choi EJ, Kang K-H, Lee B-D. Case series of cleidocranial dysplasia: radiographic follow-up study of delayed eruption of impacted permanent teeth. Imaging Sci Dent. 2019;49(4):307–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramakrishnan P, Valambath SJOJR. Atypical radiographic appearance in cleidocranial dysplasia. OMICS J Radol. 2016;5(221):2.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Qin XY, Jia PZ, Zhao HX, Li WR, Chen F, Lin JX. Novel mutation of cleidocranial dysplasia-related frameshift runt-related transcription factor 2 in a sporadic Chinese case. Chin Med J. 2017;130(2):165–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Park JA, Lee J-S, Koh K-S, Song W-CJS, Anatomy R. Using the zygomatic arch as a reference line for clinical applications and anthropological studies. Surg Radiol Anat. 2019;41(5):501–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Furuuchi T, Kochi S, Sasano T, Iikubo M, Komai S, Igari K. Morphologic characteristics of masseter muscle in cleidocranial dysplasia: a report of 3 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99(2):185–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang B, Takahashi K, Jennings EA, Pumtang-On P, Kiso H, Togo Y, et al. Prospective signs of cleidocranial dysplasia in Cebpb deficiency. J Biomed Sci. 2014;21(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Hsueh SJ, Lee NC, Yang SH, Lin HI, Lin CH. A limb-girdle myopathy phenotype of RUNX2 mutation in a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia: a case study and literature review. BMC Neurol. 2017;17(1):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Tessa A, Salvi S, Casali C, Garavelli L, Digilio MC, Dotti MT, et al. Six novel mutations of the RUNX2 gene in Italian patients with cleidocranial dysplasia. Hum Mutat. 2003;22(1):104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Han X, Feng J, Guo T, Loh YE, Yuan Y, Ho TV, et al. Runx2-Twist1 interaction coordinates cranial neural crest guidance of soft palate myogenesis. Elife. 2021. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62387.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Pepicelli A, Woods M, Briggs C. The mandibular muscles and their importance in orthodontics: a contemporary review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(6):774–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sella-Tunis T, Pokhojaev A, Sarig R, O’Higgins P, May H. Human mandibular shape is associated with masticatory muscle force. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pourtaheri N, Allam O, Chandler L, Steinbacher DM. Orthognathic surgery in cleidocranial dysplasia. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(3):e290–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rocha R, Zasso MB, Floriano G, Derech C, Ribeiro GU, Locks A, et al. Orthodontic traction in a patient with cleidocranial dysplasia: 3 years of follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(1):108–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program, (No. 2020YFS0045). The funder did not participate in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or manuscript writing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases and Department of Oral Radiology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, Section 3, Ren Min South Road, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

    Yuchao Shi, Zelin Ye, Yuanyuan Liu, Hu Wang & Meng You

Authors
  1. Yuchao Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zelin Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuanyuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meng You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MY and HW conceptualised and designed the study. YS, ZY and YL collected and analyzed the data. YS wrote the main manuscript text. MY and HW revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng You.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Stomatology, Chengdu, China (WCHSIRB-D-2021–014). All methods were carried out in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. Because this study was retrospective and personally identifiable information was not included, informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Stomatology, Chengdu, China.

Consent for publication

No applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, Y., Ye, Z., Liu, Y. et al. Detection and diagnosis of cleidocranial dysplasia by panoramic radiography: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 22, 558 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02610-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02610-7

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us