×
Home
Archive Submission Guidelines
News Contact
Original article
Crossmark

An ecological study on orofacial clefts in northeastern Brazil

By
Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti ,
Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti
Contact Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti
Everton de Sousa Catão ,
Everton de Sousa Catão
Tiago Virgínio Fernandes1 ,
Tiago Virgínio Fernandes1
Natália Medeiros Andrade ,
Natália Medeiros Andrade
Gustavo Correia Basto da Silva ,
Gustavo Correia Basto da Silva
Liege Helena Freitas Fernandes ,
Liege Helena Freitas Fernandes
Catarina Ribeiro Barros de Alencar ,
Catarina Ribeiro Barros de Alencar
Alidianne Fábia Cabral Cavalcant
Alidianne Fábia Cabral Cavalcant

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the prevalence of live births with orofacial clefts in Northeastern Brazil, with regard to Brazil’s federative units. An ecological, descriptive study was developed based on the data recorded in the Brazilian Information System on Live Births (SINASC), between 2011 and 2016 in nine Brazilian capitals (Maceio, Salvador, Fortaleza, São Luís, João Pessoa, Recife, Teresina, Natal and Aracaju). Data on the number of live births, number of live births with congenital anomaly and number of live births with orofacial clefts were collected according to the state of the federation, year of birth, gender, race and birth weight. Data were tabulated with Microsoft Excel software and presented through descriptive statistics (absolute and percentage distributions). In the analyzed period, there were 1,530,701 births, 19,536 (1.3 %) cases of congenital anomalies and 902 cases of orofacial clefts, or 5.9 per 10,000 live births. Among the cities analyzed, Natal (state of Rio Grande do Norte) and Recife (state of Pernambuco) presented the prevalence of 7.3 and 7.2 cases, respectively, of orofacial clefts for every 10,000 births. Regarding the demographic and clinical characteristics, 60 % of children were males, non-white (83.7 %) and normal birth weight (73.1 %). In the northeastern region of Brazil, the cities of Natal and Recife presented the highest prevalence of children with orofacial clefts.

References

1.
SOUSA GFT de, RONCALLI AG. Orofacial clefts in Brazil and surgical rehabilitation under the Brazilian National Health System. Brazilian Oral Research. 2017;31(0).
2.
Filgueira IG, Azevedo ID, Ramalho LS. Quality of life of patients with cleft lip and / or cleft palate: perspective of parents/guardians. Vol. 15. 2015.
3.
Pacáková D, Zábavníková M, Miklošová M, Kúkeľová D, Dankovčík R. Epidemiological Study of Orofacial Clefts among Population of Eastern Slovakia during the Period 1996-2013. Central European Journal of Public Health. 2016;24(2):128–32.
4.
Dixon MJ, Marazita ML, Beaty TH, Murray JC. Cleft lip and palate: understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2011;12(3):167–78.
5.
Neogi SB, Singh S, Pallepogula DR, Pant H, Kolli SR, Bharti P, et al. Risk factors for orofacial clefts in India: A case–control study. Birth Defects Research. 2017;109(16):1284–91.

Citation

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

Citations

Crossref Logo

3

Crossref Logo

Adriana Mendonça da Silva, Rodrigo Tripodi Calumby, Valéria Souza Freitas

(2024)

Epidemiologic profile and prevalence of live births with orofacial cleft in Brazil: a descriptive study

Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 42()

10.1590/1984-0462/2024/42/2022234

Crossref Logo

Adriana M da Silva, VS Freitas, AR Vieira

(2025)

Comparative study of individuals born with orofacial clefts in the United States and Brazil

Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, 18(6)

10.1177/19345798251343829

Crossref Logo

Raissa Sucar Pereira de Araújo

(2025)

Análise de uma faceta das malformações labiopalatais no Brasil: Estudo ecológico de uma década

Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (RBCP) – Brazilian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 40(CP)

10.1055/s-0045-1807283

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.