OBJECTIVE: To evaluate numerically the facial profile of children with isolated Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) and to compare them with a control group that has no pathologies and exhibits regular and balanced facial growth, with no skeletal alterations. PATIENTS: Eighty-three children aged 5 to 10 years (PRS group, n = 60; control group, n = 23) were selected. SETTING: Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC-USP). Children from the control group were taken from the program of Interceptive Orthodontics at HRAC-USP. DESIGN: Angular and ratio analyses of the facial profiles in both groups were realized through digital photographs. The PRS group was subdivided into two groups--complete and incomplete--according to the sagittal extension of the cleft palate, to investigate the possible influence of cleft extension on the face. RESULTS: The facial convexity angle and the facial inferior third angle were considerably higher in the PRS groups than in the control group and were not significantly different between PRS groups. Nasolabial angle did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The facial profile was more convex in individuals with PRS than in those with regular facial growth and with no pathology. The mandible was responsible for the convexity of the profile in PRS because of its lack off anterior projection. An important relationship between the extension of the cleft palate and alterations in facial profile in PRS was not observed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate numerically the facial profile of children with isolated Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) and to compare them with a control group that has no pathologies and exhibits regular and balanced facial growth, with no skeletal alterations. PATIENTS: Eighty-three children aged 5 to 10 years (PRS group, n = 60; control group, n = 23) were selected. SETTING: Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC-USP). Children from the control group were taken from the program of Interceptive Orthodontics at HRAC-USP. DESIGN: Angular and ratio analyses of the facial profiles in both groups were realized through digital photographs. The PRS group was subdivided into two groups--complete and incomplete--according to the sagittal extension of the cleft palate, to investigate the possible influence of cleft extension on the face. RESULTS: The facial convexity angle and the facial inferior third angle were considerably higher in the PRS groups than in the control group and were not significantly different between PRS groups. Nasolabial angle did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The facial profile was more convex in individuals with PRS than in those with regular facial growth and with no pathology. The mandible was responsible for the convexity of the profile in PRS because of its lack off anterior projection. An important relationship between the extension of the cleft palate and alterations in facial profile in PRS was not observed.
Authors: Kenneth L Fan; Max Mandelbaum; Justin Buro; Alex Rokni; Gary F Rogers; Jerry W Chao; Albert K Oh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-11-07