R Christian Solem1, Antonio Ruellas2, Joni L Ricks-Oddie3, Katherine Kelly4, Snehlata Oberoi, Janice Lee, Arthur Miller5, Lucia Cevidanes6. 1. Lecturer, Section of Orthodontics, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. Electronic address: rchristian@g.ucla.edu. 2. Associate professor, Federal University of Rio de Janerio, Rio de Janerio, Brazil; postdoctoral fellow, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 3. Statistical consultant, Institute for Digital Research and Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. 4. Adjunct clinical assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 5. Professor, School of Dentistry, University of California, San Francisco, Calif. 6. Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Disordered craniofacial development frequently results in definitive facial asymmetries that can significantly impact a person's social and functional well-being. The mandible plays a prominent role in defining facial symmetry and, as an active region of growth, commonly acquires asymmetric features. Additionally, syndromic mandibular asymmetry characterizes craniofacial microsomia (CFM), the second most prevalent congenital craniofacial anomaly (1:3000 to 1:5000 live births) after cleft lip and palate. We hypothesized that asymmetric rates of mandibular growth occur in the context of syndromic and acquired facial asymmetries. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, a spherical harmonic-based shape correspondence algorithm was applied to quantify and characterize asymmetries in mandibular growth and remodeling in 3 groups during adolescence. Longitudinal time points were automatically registered, and regions of the condyle and posterior ramus were selected for growth quantification. The first group (n = 9) had a diagnosis of CFM, limited to Pruzansky-Kaban type I or IIA mandibular deformities. The second group (n = 10) consisted of subjects with asymmetric, nonsyndromic dentofacial asymmetry requiring surgical intervention. A control group (n = 10) of symmetric patients was selected for comparison. A linear mixed model was used for the statistical comparison of growth asymmetry between the groups. RESULTS: Initial mandibular shape and symmetry displayed distinct signatures in the 3 groups (P <0.001), with the greatest asymmetries in the condyle and ramus. Similarly, mandibular growth had unique patterns in the groups. The dentofacial asymmetry group was characterized by significant asymmetry in condylar and posterior ramal remodeling with growth (P <0.001). The CFM group was characterized by asymmetric growth of the posterior ramus (P <0.001) but relatively symmetric growth of the condyles (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Forms of CFM are characterized by active and variable growth of the dysplastic side, which has a distinct pattern from other disorders of mandibular growth.
INTRODUCTION:Disordered craniofacial development frequently results in definitive facial asymmetries that can significantly impact a person's social and functional well-being. The mandible plays a prominent role in defining facial symmetry and, as an active region of growth, commonly acquires asymmetric features. Additionally, syndromic mandibular asymmetry characterizes craniofacial microsomia (CFM), the second most prevalent congenital craniofacial anomaly (1:3000 to 1:5000 live births) after cleft lip and palate. We hypothesized that asymmetric rates of mandibular growth occur in the context of syndromic and acquired facial asymmetries. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, a spherical harmonic-based shape correspondence algorithm was applied to quantify and characterize asymmetries in mandibular growth and remodeling in 3 groups during adolescence. Longitudinal time points were automatically registered, and regions of the condyle and posterior ramus were selected for growth quantification. The first group (n = 9) had a diagnosis of CFM, limited to Pruzansky-Kaban type I or IIA mandibular deformities. The second group (n = 10) consisted of subjects with asymmetric, nonsyndromic dentofacial asymmetry requiring surgical intervention. A control group (n = 10) of symmetric patients was selected for comparison. A linear mixed model was used for the statistical comparison of growth asymmetry between the groups. RESULTS: Initial mandibular shape and symmetry displayed distinct signatures in the 3 groups (P <0.001), with the greatest asymmetries in the condyle and ramus. Similarly, mandibular growth had unique patterns in the groups. The dentofacial asymmetry group was characterized by significant asymmetry in condylar and posterior ramal remodeling with growth (P <0.001). The CFM group was characterized by asymmetric growth of the posterior ramus (P <0.001) but relatively symmetric growth of the condyles (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Forms of CFM are characterized by active and variable growth of the dysplastic side, which has a distinct pattern from other disorders of mandibular growth.
Authors: Frederic H Fahey; Zachary R Abramson; Bonnie L Padwa; Robert E Zimmerman; David Zurakowski; Mark Nissenbaum; Leonard B Kaban; S Ted Treves Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: B Q Souki; P L C Vilefort; D D Oliveira; I Andrade; A C Ruellas; M S Yatabe; T Nguyen; L Franchi; J A McNamara; L H S Cevidanes Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Omed Shafiq Hama Amin; Saman Wahid Abdulrahman; Ahmad Altom; Bikhtiyar Azad Hasan; Rebwar Hassan Khdhir; Rostam Hama Zorab; Jeza M Abdul Aziz; Nguyen Tien Huy Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-06-25
Authors: Arianne Lewyllie; Maria Cadenas De Llano-Pérula; Anna Verdonck; Guy Willems Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 2.419