# Incidental Findings in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Case-Control Study
## 3 Results
### Prevalence of Incidental Findings  
In total, 74.17% of the total sample presented IFs (Table 2). More specifically, the prevalence of IFs was 97.5% in the case group and 62.5% in the control group (Table 2). According to the Chi-square test, the higher prevalence of IFs that was reported in the case group compared with the control group was statistically significant [\(\chi^{2}\) = 17.05, degrees of freedom (dfs) = 1, \(p\) < 0.001, Table 3]. Representative radiographic images of CL/P patients are depicted in Figures 1-3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **All Participants** & **Controls** & **Cases** \\ \hline  & \(n\) = 120** & \(n\) = 80** & \(n\) = 40_ \\ \hline Gender, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ Females & 54 (45.0\%) & 36 (45.0\%) & 18 (45.0\%) \\ Males & 66 (55.0\%) & 44 (55.0\%) & 22 (55.00\%) \\ Age (years), mean (SD 1) & 14.6 (5.0) & 14.6 (5.0) & 14.5 (5.0) \\ Cleft type, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ CLP—B & 9 (7.5\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 9 (22.5\%) \\ CLP—UL & 16 (13.3\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 16 (40.0\%) \\ CLP—UR & 4 (3.3\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 4 (10.0\%) \\ CP & 5 (4.1\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 5 (12.5\%) \\ CP—UL & 3 (2.5\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 3 (7.5\%) \\ CP—UR & 3 (2.5\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 3 (7.5\%) \\ No & 80 (66.7\%) & 80 (100.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* SD: standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Demographic and disease characteristics of the study population. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **All Participants** & **Controls** & **Cases** \\ \hline  & \(n\) = 120** & \(n\) = 80** & \(n\) = 40_ \\ \hline IFs, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 31 (25.8\%) & 30 (37.5\%) & 1 (2.5\%) \\ Yes & 89 (74.2\%) & 50 (62.5\%) & 39 (97.5\%) \\ IFs in maxilla, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 48 (40.0\%) & 45 (56.3\%) & 3 (7.5\%) \\ Yes & 72 (60.0\%) & 35 (43.8\%) & 37 (92.5\%) \\ Number of IFs in maxilla, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\
0 & 48 (40.0\%) & 45 (56.3\%) & 2 (5.0\%) \\
1 & 19 (15.0\%) & 10 (12.5\%) & 9 (22.5\%) \\
2 & 21 (17.5\%) & 17 (21.3\%) & 4 (10.0\%) \\
3 & 15 (12.5\%) & 4 (5.0\%) & 11 (27.5\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on incidental findings (IFs). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **All Participants** & **Controls** & **Cases** \\ \hline  & \(n\) **= 120** & \(n\) **= 80** & \(n\) **= 40** \\ \hline
4 & 10 (8.3\%) & 3 (3.8\%) & 7 (17.5\%) \\
5 & 3 (2.5\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 3 (7.5\%) \\
6 & 4 (3.3\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 4 (10.0\%) \\
0 & 61 (51.7\%) & 47 (58.8\%) & 14 (36.8\%) \\
1 & 16 (13.6\%) & 9 (11.3\%) & 7 (18.4\%) \\
2 & 32 (27.1\%) & 19 (23.8\%) & 13 (34.2\%) \\
3 & 1 (0.9\%) & 1 (1.3\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\
4 & 5 (4.2\%) & 2 (2.5\%) & 3 (7.9\%) \\
5 & 0 (0.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\
6 & 3 (2.5\%) & 2 (2.5\%) & 1 (2.6\%) \\ IFs in paranasal sinuses, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 89 (80.9\%) & 73 (97.3\%) & 16 (45.7\%) \\ Yes & 21 (19.1\%) & 2 (2.7\%) & 19 (54.3\%) \\ IFs in nasal cavity, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 74 (74.0\%) & 66 (98.5\%) & 8 (24.2\%) \\ Yes & 26 (26.0\%) & 1 (1.5\%) & 25 (75.8\%) \\ IFs in middle and inner ear, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 3 (100.0\%) & 1 (100.0\%) & 2 (100.0\%) \\ IFs in orbit, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 71 (100.0\%) & 67 (100.0\%) & 4 (100.0\%) \\ IFs in skull, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 7 (100.0\%) & 3 (100.0\%) & 4 (100.0\%) \\ IFs in cervical spine, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 86 (100.0\%) & 66 (100.0\%) & 20 (100.0\%) \\ IFs in TMJ structures, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 73 (79.4\%) & 64 (85.3\%) & 9 (52.9\%) \\ Yes & 19 (20.6\%) & 11 (14.7\%) & 8 (47.1\%) \\ IFs in soft tissues, \(n\) (\%) & & & \\ No & 24 (92.3\%) & & 24 (92.3\%) \\ Yes & 2 (7.7\%) & & 2 (7.7\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **No IFs** & **IFs** \\ \hline Controls & 30 (37.5\%) & 50 (62.5\%) \\ Cases & 1 (2.5\%) & 39 (97.5\%) \\ \(\chi^{2}\) = 17.05, \(\mathrm{dfs}\) = 1, \(p\) \(<\) 0.001 ** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of the prevalence of IFs between cases and controls.