## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tooth**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hypodontia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hyperdontia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Microdontia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deformed Tooth**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Impacted Tooth**} \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{13} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 4 (50) & 1 (12.5) & 3 (75) & 1 (25) & 0 \\  & 11 & 0 & 0 & 1 (12.5) & 0 & 0 \\  & 21 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 22 (25) & 1 (12.5) & 2 (33) & 1 (16.67) & 0 \\  & 23 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{L-CLP (\(n=36\))} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{13} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 (2.78) \\  & 9 (25) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 11 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 21 & 1 (2.78) & 1 (2.78) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 22 & 17 (47.22) & 4 (11.11) & 15 (83.33) & 1 (5.56) & 3 (16.67) \\  & 23 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{BCLP (\(n=17\))} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{13} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 (5.88) \\  & 7 (41.18) & 3 (17.65) & 7 (70) & 1 (10) & 0 \\  & 11 & 0 & 1 (5.88) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 21 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 22 & 5 (29.41) & 5 (29.41) & 8 (66.67) & 2 (16.67) & 1 (8.33) \\  & 23 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Presence of quantity and quality dental anomalies in female patients with CLP (left-sided L-CLP, right-sided R-CLP, and bilateral BCLP). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tooth**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hypodontia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Hyperponia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Microdontia**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deformed Tooth**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Impacted Tooth**} \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{13} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 (2.08) \\  & 5 (52.1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 11 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 21 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 22 & 5 (52.1) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\  & 23 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 (1.04) & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Presence of quantity and quality dental anomalies in female patients without cleft (\(n=99\)). In both females and males, dental anomalies were found to occur more frequently in individuals with clefts compared to those without the condition. Furthermore, there was a predominance of dental anomalies on the clefted side. The lateral incisor was identified as the most affected tooth in these cases. Table 6 presents the values of the widths of the maxillary incisors and canines. In patients with R-CLP, it was observed that the lateral right incisor was the narrowest tooth in the dental arch. The mean width of tooth 12 was more than 1 mm lower than that of tooth 22, indicating a significant level of asymmetry. In contrast, among L-CLP patients, tooth 22 had a mean width that was 1.5 mm lower than that of tooth 12, indicating an even higher level of asymmetry. In both cases, the asymmetry in tooth width affected the cleft side. Among males with BCLP, the left lateral incisor was narrower than the right lateral incisor by an average of 0.75 mm. To provide a broader understanding of the results, a variance analysis of teeth width was conducted in the male groups, and all the presented results were found to be statistically significant, as shown in Table 7.  
Following the variance analysis, six Supplementary Figures (Figures S1-S6) were prepared to visually illustrate the comparison of widths between canines and incisors in the examined male groups. The statistical analysis revealed that the differences in tooth widths between healthy individuals and cleft patients were not only related to symmetry, but also varied among the different groups. Generally, the most significant differences were observed among the incisors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & & & & \\ \hline
**Tooth** & **Number of Samples** & **Mean** & **Minimum Value** & **Maximum Value** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline  
\hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The width of the teeth in the group of males. The differences in the widths of the teeth 13 were observed in various comparisons among male patients with unilateral clefts (Figure S1).