Motoki Katsube1,2, Sara M Rolfe3, Stephanie R Bortolussi4, Yutaka Yamaguchi2, Joy M Richman4, Shigehito Yamada2,5, Siddharth R Vora4. 1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 2. Congenital Anomaly Research Center, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 3. Developmental Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Oral Health Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Asymmetry has been noted in the human craniofacial region in several pathological conditional and growth abnormalities, often with a directional predilection. Physiological asymmetry has also been reported in normal adults and adolescents, with certain regions of the cranioskeleton, such as the mandible, displaying prevalent asymmetry. However, the timing at which such asymmetries arise has not been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to assess the degree of asymmetry in facial bones during the foetal stages of human development. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one preserved conceptuses from the Congenital Anomaly Research Center at Kyoto University, between ages 15 and 20 weeks of gestation, were studied using high-resolution μCT imaging. Asymmetry analysis was performed on digitally segmented facial bone pairs, using geometric morphometric (GM) approaches as well as adapted deformation-based asymmetry (DBA) methods. RESULTS: GM analysis revealed that the developing facial bones display statistically significant fluctuating and directional asymmetry. DBA methods suggest that the magnitude of asymmetry in facial bones is low and does not appear to be correlated to the estimate of overall size of conceptus. Additionally, the patterns of asymmetry are highly variable between individual specimens. CONCLUSIONS: The developing foetal facial skeleton displays variable patterns of low magnitude asymmetry. GM and DBA methods offer unique advantages to assess facial asymmetry quantitatively and qualitatively.
OBJECTIVES: Asymmetry has been noted in the human craniofacial region in several pathological conditional and growth abnormalities, often with a directional predilection. Physiological asymmetry has also been reported in normal adults and adolescents, with certain regions of the cranioskeleton, such as the mandible, displaying prevalent asymmetry. However, the timing at which such asymmetries arise has not been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to assess the degree of asymmetry in facial bones during the foetal stages of human development. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one preserved conceptuses from the Congenital Anomaly Research Center at Kyoto University, between ages 15 and 20 weeks of gestation, were studied using high-resolution μCT imaging. Asymmetry analysis was performed on digitally segmented facial bone pairs, using geometric morphometric (GM) approaches as well as adapted deformation-based asymmetry (DBA) methods. RESULTS:GM analysis revealed that the developing facial bones display statistically significant fluctuating and directional asymmetry. DBA methods suggest that the magnitude of asymmetry in facial bones is low and does not appear to be correlated to the estimate of overall size of conceptus. Additionally, the patterns of asymmetry are highly variable between individual specimens. CONCLUSIONS: The developing foetal facial skeleton displays variable patterns of low magnitude asymmetry. GM and DBA methods offer unique advantages to assess facial asymmetry quantitatively and qualitatively.
Authors: Katrin Schaefer; Tomislav Lauc; Philipp Mitteroecker; Philipp Gunz; Fred L Bookstein Journal: Am J Phys Anthropol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.868
Authors: P Hammond; C Forster-Gibson; A E Chudley; J E Allanson; T J Hutton; S A Farrell; J McKenzie; J J A Holden; M E S Lewis Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Robin J Hennessy; Abbie Lane; Anthony Kinsella; Conall Larkin; Eadbhard O'Callaghan; John L Waddington Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Adrian Danescu; Elisabeth G Rens; Jaspreet Rehki; Johnathan Woo; Takashi Akazawa; Katherine Fu; Leah Edelstein-Keshet; Joy M Richman Journal: Development Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 6.868