Cristiano Tonello1, Lucia H S Cevidanes2, Antonio C O Ruellas2,3, Nivaldo Alonso4. 1. Craniofacial Department, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. 4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facial advancement represents the essence of the surgical treatment of syndromic craniosynostosis. Frontofacial monobloc distraction is an effective surgical approach to correct midface retrusion although someone consider it very hazardous procedure. The authors evaluated a group of patients who underwent frontofacial monobloc distraction with the aim to identify the advancement results performed in immature skeletal regarding the midface morphologic characteristics and its effects on growth. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent frontofacial monobloc distraction with pre- and postsurgical computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated and compared to a control group of 9 nonsyndromic children with CT scans at 1-year intervals during craniofacial growth. Three-dimensional measurements and superimposition of the CT scans were used to evaluate midface morphologic features and longitudinal changes during the craniofacial growth and following the advancement. Presurgical growth was evaluated in 4 patients and postsurgical growth was evaluated in 9 patients. RESULTS: Syndromic maxillary width and length were reduced and the most obtuse facial angles showed a lack in forward projection of the central portion in these patients. Three-dimensional distances and images superimposition demonstrated the age did not influence the course of abnormal midface growth. CONCLUSION: The syndromic midface is hypoplastic and the sagittal deficiency is associated to axial facial concavity. The advancement performed in mixed dentition stages allowed the normalization of facial position comparable to nonsyndromic group. However, the procedure was not able to change the abnormal midface architecture and craniofacial growth.
BACKGROUND: Facial advancement represents the essence of the surgical treatment of syndromic craniosynostosis. Frontofacial monobloc distraction is an effective surgical approach to correct midface retrusion although someone consider it very hazardous procedure. The authors evaluated a group of patients who underwent frontofacial monobloc distraction with the aim to identify the advancement results performed in immature skeletal regarding the midface morphologic characteristics and its effects on growth. METHODS: Sixteen patients who underwent frontofacial monobloc distraction with pre- and postsurgical computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated and compared to a control group of 9 nonsyndromic children with CT scans at 1-year intervals during craniofacial growth. Three-dimensional measurements and superimposition of the CT scans were used to evaluate midface morphologic features and longitudinal changes during the craniofacial growth and following the advancement. Presurgical growth was evaluated in 4 patients and postsurgical growth was evaluated in 9 patients. RESULTS:Syndromic maxillary width and length were reduced and the most obtuse facial angles showed a lack in forward projection of the central portion in these patients. Three-dimensional distances and images superimposition demonstrated the age did not influence the course of abnormal midface growth. CONCLUSION: The syndromic midface is hypoplastic and the sagittal deficiency is associated to axial facial concavity. The advancement performed in mixed dentition stages allowed the normalization of facial position comparable to nonsyndromic group. However, the procedure was not able to change the abnormal midface architecture and craniofacial growth.
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Alexandre Motta; William R Proffit; James L Ackerman; Martin Styner Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Richard A Hopper; Russell E Ettinger; Chad A Purnell; M Stephen Dover; Alberto Rocha Pereira; Gökhan Tunçbilek Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Lucia H S Cevidanes; Antonio C O Ruellas; Julien Jomier; Tung Nguyen; Steve Pieper; Francois Budin; Martin Styner; Beatriz Paniagua Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Youssef Tahiri; J Thomas Paliga; Arastoo Vossough; Scott P Bartlett; Jesse A Taylor Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: James P Bradley; Alex Levitt; Joanna Nguyen; Cassio E Raposo; Reza Jarrahy; Hurig V Katchikian; Henry K Kawamoto Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.730