OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare facial asymmetry in subjects with JIA with unilateral, bilateral or no TM joint (TMJ) involvement. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with JIA: 22 with unilateral TMJ involvement (Group 1), 15 with bilateral TMJ involvement (Group 2) and 44 with no TMJ involvement (Group 3). Panoramic X-rays and three-dimensional (3D) photographs (surface scans) were obtained for all subjects. Panoramic X-rays were rated for severity of TMJ involvement. For each individual, a spatially detailed facial asymmetry map was created from the 3D photograph. Mean and variability of asymmetry were calculated for each of the three groups and compared. RESULTS: Distinct patterns of asymmetry were found in Groups 1 and 2. With mean asymmetry values up to 3.5 mm, Group 1 exhibited a significantly greater amount of asymmetry in a broad band along the lower jaw extending from the region of the condyle to the chin than Group 2. The mean facial asymmetry (1 S.D.) for each JIA group was 2.3 (0.9), 2.0 (0.7), 1.7 (0.5) mm for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: JIA subjects with TMJ involvement displayed patterns of facial asymmetry consistent with the destruction of the condylar growth centre, leading to mandibular asymmetry with displacement of the bony chin. Facial asymmetry quantification was found to be an effective method for assessing both the amount and the localization and spatial extent of asymmetry in all 3Ds.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare facial asymmetry in subjects with JIA with unilateral, bilateral or no TM joint (TMJ) involvement. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with JIA: 22 with unilateral TMJ involvement (Group 1), 15 with bilateral TMJ involvement (Group 2) and 44 with no TMJ involvement (Group 3). Panoramic X-rays and three-dimensional (3D) photographs (surface scans) were obtained for all subjects. Panoramic X-rays were rated for severity of TMJ involvement. For each individual, a spatially detailed facial asymmetry map was created from the 3D photograph. Mean and variability of asymmetry were calculated for each of the three groups and compared. RESULTS: Distinct patterns of asymmetry were found in Groups 1 and 2. With mean asymmetry values up to 3.5 mm, Group 1 exhibited a significantly greater amount of asymmetry in a broad band along the lower jaw extending from the region of the condyle to the chin than Group 2. The mean facial asymmetry (1 S.D.) for each JIA group was 2.3 (0.9), 2.0 (0.7), 1.7 (0.5) mm for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: JIA subjects with TMJ involvement displayed patterns of facial asymmetry consistent with the destruction of the condylar growth centre, leading to mandibular asymmetry with displacement of the bony chin. Facial asymmetry quantification was found to be an effective method for assessing both the amount and the localization and spatial extent of asymmetry in all 3Ds.
Authors: Yuh-Jia Hsieh; Tron A Darvann; Nuno V Hermann; Per Larsen; Yu-Fang Liao; Sven Kreiborg Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Motoki Katsube; Sara M Rolfe; Stephanie R Bortolussi; Yutaka Yamaguchi; Joy M Richman; Shigehito Yamada; Siddharth R Vora Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Peter Stoustrup; Christian Kerting Iversen; Kasper Dahl Kristensen; Cory M Resnick; Carlalberta Verna; Sven Erik Nørholt; Shelly Abramowicz; Annelise Küseler; Paolo Maria Cattaneo; Troels Herlin; Thomas Klit Pedersen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240