Literature DB >> 24406554

Facial clefts and facial dysplasia: revisiting the classification.

Riccardo F Mazzola1, Isabella C Mazzola.   

Abstract

Most craniofacial malformations are identified by their appearance. The majority of the classification systems are mainly clinical or anatomical, not related to the different levels of development of the malformation, and underlying pathology is usually not taken into consideration. In 1976, Tessier first emphasized the relationship between soft tissues and the underlying bone stating that "a fissure of the soft tissue corresponds, as a general rule, with a cleft of the bony structure". He introduced a cleft numbering system around the orbit from 0 to 14 depending on its relationship to the zero line (ie, the vertical midline cleft of the face). The classification, easy to understand, became widely accepted because the recording of the malformations was simple and communication between observers facilitated. It represented a great breakthrough in identifying craniofacial malformations, named clefts by him. In the present paper, the embryological-based classification of craniofacial malformations, proposed in 1983 and in 1990 by us, has been revisited. Its aim was to clarify some unanswered questions regarding apparently atypical or bizarre anomalies and to establish as much as possible the moment when this event occurred. In our opinion, this classification system may well integrate the one proposed by Tessier and tries at the same time to find a correlation between clinical observation and morphogenesis.Terminology is important. The overused term cleft should be reserved to true clefts only, developed from disturbances in the union of the embryonic facial processes, between the lateronasal and maxillary process (or oro-naso-ocular cleft); between the medionasal and maxillary process (or cleft of the lip); between the maxillary processes (or cleft of the palate); and between the maxillary and mandibular process (or macrostomia).For the other types of defects, derived from alteration of bone production centers, the word dysplasia should be used instead. Facial dysplasias have been ranged in a helix form and named after the site of the developmental arrest. Thus, an internasal, nasal, nasomaxillary, maxillary and malar dysplasia, depending on the involved area, have been identified.The classification may provide a useful guide in better understanding the morphogenesis of rare craniofacial malformations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24406554     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182a2ea94

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  4 in total

1.  Unilateral macrostomia in the newborn: a rare congenital anomaly of the oral commissure.

Authors:  Eva Simonse; Bianca Panis; Jamiu O Busari
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-10-28

Review 2.  Classification of congenital nasal deformities: a proposal to amend the existing classification.

Authors:  Marta Fijałkowska; Bogusław Antoszewski
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Unexpected Difficult Airway Management in a Grossly Malformed Newborn Baby With Tessier Cleft After an Emergency Cesarean Section.

Authors:  Shipra Tandon; Mridul Dhar; Amrita Bannerjee
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-13

4.  Prevalence of True Median Cleft of Upper Lip as Reflected from a Small Central Indian Population: Attempt to Report and Review the True Median Cleft of Upper Lip.

Authors:  Gunjan Dube; Sanchit Jain
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2017-12-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.