Search

Objective: The socioeconomic status of parents, specially the one in which the mother is brought up, affects her general health. This in turn can lead to the birth of a child with congenital abnormalities. A non-syndromic cleft of the lip, alveolus or palate (CLAP) is one of the common possibilities. Our objective was to explore association between socioeconomic status and occurrence of CLAP. Methods: A total of 250 cases of non-syndromic CLAP in children of both sexes were studied over a period of one year at the pediatric surgery department of a tertiary care children’s hospital in Kolkata. The rural and urban residential status of the respective families was carefully ascertained. Descriptive analysis was done. Results: Of 250 cases, 47 (18.80%) were affected with cleft lip, 139 (55.60%) with cleft lip and palate and 64 (25.60%) with cleft palate alone. Of the studied cases, 171(68.40%) came from rural areas.The affected rural families were socioeconomically weaker than their urban counterparts. The distribution of CLAP types differed significantly between rural and urban population with the frequency of cleft lip being higher in urban but that of cleft lip and palate higher in the rural population (p< 0.05). Conclusion: Rural children predominate in the hospital population studied and tend to have greater frequency of complete clefting rather than cleft lip alone. The socioeconomic status may be a contributor towards this difference.

Orofacial clefting is a common birth defect with wide phenotypic variability. Many systems have been developed to classify cleft patterns to facilitate diagnosis, management, surgical treatment, and research. In this review, we examine the rationale for different existing classification schemes and determine their inter-relationships, as well as strengths and deficiencies for subclassification of clefts of the lip. The various systems differ in how they describe and define attributes of cleft lip phenotypes. Application and analysis of the cleft lip classifications reveal discrepancies that may result in errors when comparing studies that use different systems. These inconsistencies in terminology, variable levels of subclassification, and ambiguity in some descriptions may confound analyses and impede further research aimed at understanding the genetics and etiology of clefts, development of effective treatment options for patients, as well as cross-institutional comparisons of outcome measures. Identification and reconciliation of discrepancies among existing systems is the first step towards creating a common standard to allow for a more explicit interpretation that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the causes and manifestations of phenotypic variations in clefting.