Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026
Method of Studying Palatal Fusion using Static Organ Culture
Published on: September 19, 2015
Bite force of children with repaired unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate
Michele Alves Garcia1, Daniela Rios2, Heitor Marques Honório2
1Department of Biological Sciences, Discipline of Physiology, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Insights
Children with repaired cleft lip and palate (CLP) show no significant differences in bite force compared to their peers. However, the cleft lip group exhibited stronger bite force than unilateral and bilateral cleft groups.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric dentistry
- Craniofacial anomalies
- Oral function assessment
Background:
- Cleft lip and palate (CLP) are common congenital conditions affecting facial development.
- Assessing oral function, such as bite force, is crucial for understanding the impact of CLP.
- Previous research on bite force in children with CLP is limited.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the bite force (BF) in children aged 6-12 years with various types of repaired cleft lip and palate (CLP).
- To establish normative data for bite force in a pediatric population with and without CLP.
- To identify potential differences in bite force related to the type and extent of CLP.
Main Methods:
- A clinical trial involving 5 groups: control (no CLP), cleft lip (CL), unilateral CLP (UCLP), bilateral CLP (BCLP), and cleft palate (CP).
- Bite force was measured using a gnathodynamometer in the anterior and posterior regions of the maxilla.
- Statistical analysis included ANOVA and Tukey's test to compare bite force among the groups.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in bite force were found between children with CLP and the control group.
- The cleft lip group demonstrated a stronger bite force compared to the unilateral and bilateral CLP groups.
- Bite force was consistently lower in the anterior maxilla compared to the posterior maxilla across all groups.
Conclusions:
- Repaired cleft lip and palate does not significantly alter overall bite force in children compared to non-affected peers.
- Specific cleft types, like isolated cleft lip, may show variations in bite force.
- Maxillary anterior bite force is generally weaker than posterior bite force in children, irrespective of CLP status.
Objective:
To assess the bite force (BF) of children with repaired cleft lip and palate (CLP).
Design:
Children aged 6-12 years, with and without CLP, were divided into the following 5 groups: (1) control group (CON): 34 children without CLP (17 female, 17 male, mean age 8.2±1.4); (2) cleft lip group (CL): 31 children with cleft lip involving the pre-maxilla (15 female, 16 male, mean age 9.7±1.3); (3) unilateral CLP group (UCLP): 36 children with complete unilateral CLP (11 female, 25 male, mean age 9.4±1.6); (4) bilateral CLP group (BCLP): 32 children with complete bilateral CLP (11 female, 21 male, mean age 9.5±1.7); and 5) cleft palate group (CP): 17 children with complete cleft palate (9 female, 8 male, mean age 9.4±1.6). Briefly, in this clinical trial, BF was assessed before alveolar bone grafting with a gnathodynamometer (IDDK, Kratos, Cotia, SP, Brazil). For CON, BCLP, CL and CP groups, BF was obtained in the anterior and posterior region of the maxilla. For the UCLP group, BF was assessed in the anterior and posterior regions of both segments. Differences among groups were evaluated by ANOVA test, and Tukey's test was used to assess any correlations among variables (P<0.05).
Results:
Unexpectedly, no differences of BF were observed among CON and any of the cleft groups. However, a stronger BF was observed in the CL group when compared to the UCLP and BCLP groups. Next, no differences were observed between the cleft side and the noncleft side in the UCLP group. Lastly, in all groups, BFs from the anterior region of the maxilla were less when compared to the posterior regions.
Conclusion:
The BF of children with CLP is no different from children without CLP.
