OBJECTIVE: This study examined the facial surfaces of cleft children and unaffected children aged 8-11 years with the aim of identifying and assessing differences in their facial surface morphology. The investigation was carried out using an Optical Surface Scanner, an instrument that utilizes laser light to construct and archive a three-dimensional image of the face suitable for linear measurement and direct surface comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Thirty-nine cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients and 25 unaffected subjects were voluntarily recruited from two southeast England hospitals. A range of linear facial measurements was compared. Three-dimensional differences between the cleft subgroups and the control group were visualized by superimposition of averaged cleft scans over the averaged control group images. RESULTS: Statistically significant dimensional differences (p < or = .05) in interocular width, nose base widths, mouth widths, and nose base/mouth width ratios were found between the cleft group and the control group. Qualitative differences over the whole of the face were readily demonstrated between the groups by superimposition. Face width and submandibular area depth differed consistently between the groups, the cleft face appearing narrower with a deeper submandibular area. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist between the facial surface morphology of CLP patients and control subjects.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the facial surfaces of cleft children and unaffected children aged 8-11 years with the aim of identifying and assessing differences in their facial surface morphology. The investigation was carried out using an Optical Surface Scanner, an instrument that utilizes laser light to construct and archive a three-dimensional image of the face suitable for linear measurement and direct surface comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Thirty-nine cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients and 25 unaffected subjects were voluntarily recruited from two southeast England hospitals. A range of linear facial measurements was compared. Three-dimensional differences between the cleft subgroups and the control group were visualized by superimposition of averaged cleft scans over the averaged control group images. RESULTS: Statistically significant dimensional differences (p < or = .05) in interocular width, nose base widths, mouth widths, and nose base/mouth width ratios were found between the cleft group and the control group. Qualitative differences over the whole of the face were readily demonstrated between the groups by superimposition. Face width and submandibular area depth differed consistently between the groups, the cleft face appearing narrower with a deeper submandibular area. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist between the facial surface morphology of CLPpatients and control subjects.
Authors: Claudia Sade Hoefert; Margit Bacher; Tina Herberts; Michael Krimmel; Siegmar Reinert; Sebastian Hoefert; Gernot Göz Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Seth M Weinberg; Elizabeth J Leslie; Jacqueline T Hecht; George L Wehby; Frederic W B Deleyiannis; Lina M Moreno; Kaare Christensen; Mary L Marazita Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: Carrie L Heike; Laura P Stueckle; Erik T Stuhaug; Luiz A Pimenta; Amelia F Drake; Daniela Vivaldi; Kathleen C Y Sie; Craig B Birgfeld Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.151