Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts

MA. Kuijpers, DJ. Desmedt, RM. Nada, SJ. Bergé, PS. Fudalej, TJ. Maal,

. 2015 ; 37 (6) : 636-42. [pub] 20150219

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article

OBJECTIVES: Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. METHODS: Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. RESULTS: Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. CONCLUSION: Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without clefts.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16020966
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20160727094624.0
007      
ta
008      
160722s2015 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ejo/cju104 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1093/ejo/cju104 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)25700990
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Kuijpers, Mette A $u *Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit and orthodontics@dent.umcn.nl.
245    10
$a Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts / $c MA. Kuijpers, DJ. Desmedt, RM. Nada, SJ. Bergé, PS. Fudalej, TJ. Maal,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. METHODS: Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. RESULTS: Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. CONCLUSION: Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without clefts.
650    _2
$a processus alveolaris $x abnormality $7 D000539
650    _2
$a anatomická značka $x patologie $7 D059925
650    _2
$a kefalometrie $x metody $7 D002508
650    _2
$a tvář $x patologie $7 D002610
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    _2
$a brada $x patologie $7 D002680
650    _2
$a rozštěp rtu $x klasifikace $7 D002971
650    _2
$a rozštěp patra $x klasifikace $7 D002972
650    _2
$a obličej $x patologie $7 D005145
650    _2
$a asymetrie obličeje $x klasifikace $7 D005146
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a zobrazování trojrozměrné $x metody $7 D021621
650    _2
$a ret $x patologie $7 D008046
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a nos $x patologie $7 D009666
650    _2
$a fotogrammetrie $x metody $7 D010780
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Desmedt, Dries J $u *Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.
700    1_
$a Nada, Rania M $u *Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology.
700    1_
$a Bergé, Stefaan J $u Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit and Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
700    1_
$a Fudalej, Piotr S $u Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Switzerland, Department of Orthodontics, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Maal, Thomas J $u Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
773    0_
$w MED00001634 $t European journal of orthodontics $x 1460-2210 $g Roč. 37, č. 6 (2015), s. 636-42
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25700990 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20160722 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20160727094845 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1155636 $s 945494
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 37 $c 6 $d 636-42 $e 20150219 $i 1460-2210 $m European journal of orthodontics $n Eur J Orthod $x MED00001634
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20160722

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...