Nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
25802221
DOI
10.1007/s00784-015-1445-0
PII: 10.1007/s00784-015-1445-0
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Cleft lip, Cleft palate, Esthetics, Face, Imaging, Morphology, Three dimensional,
- MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- rozštěp patra patologie chirurgie MeSH
- rozštěp rtu patologie chirurgie MeSH
- zobrazování trojrozměrné * MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in subjects with orofacial clefts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-four subjects (mean age 10 years, standard deviation 1.5) with various types of nonsyndromic clefts were included: 11 had unilateral cleft lip (UCL); 30 had unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA); and 43 had unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP). A 3D stereophotogrammetric image of the face was taken for each subject. Symmetry and esthetics were evaluated on cropped 3D facial images. The degree of asymmetry of the nasolabial area was calculated based on all 3D data points using a surface registration algorithm. Esthetic ratings of various elements of nasal morphology were performed by eight lay raters on a 100 mm visual analog scale. Statistical analysis included ANOVA tests and regression models. RESULTS: Nasolabial asymmetry increased with growing severity of the cleft (p = 0.029). Overall, nasolabial appearance was affected by nasolabial asymmetry; subjects with more nasolabial asymmetry were judged as having a less esthetically pleasing nasolabial area (p < 0.001). However, the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics was relatively weak in subjects with UCLAP, in whom only vermilion border esthetics was associated with asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Nasolabial symmetry assessed with 3D facial imaging can be used as an objective measure of treatment outcome in subjects with less severe cleft deformity. In subjects with more severe cleft types, other factors may play a decisive role. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Assessment of nasolabial symmetry is a useful measure of treatment success in less severe cleft types.
Cleft Palate Craniofacial Unit Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics University of Bern Bern Switzerland
Department of Orthodontics Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009 May;46(3):319-25 PubMed
Chest. 1999 Nov;116(5):1208-17 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992 Sep;29(5):409-12 PubMed
Stat Med. 2000 Dec 30;19(24):3483-96 PubMed
J Pain Symptom Manage. 1992 May;7(4):196-203 PubMed
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003 Nov;13(6):404-10 PubMed
Am J Orthod. 1985 Nov;88(5):402-8 PubMed
Perception. 1999;28(3):361-74 PubMed
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Jun 24;8:61 PubMed
Dev Psychol. 1999 May;35(3):848-55 PubMed
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):168.e1-8; discussion 168-9 PubMed
Perception. 2001;30(5):611-25 PubMed
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):514-21 PubMed
J Clin Nurs. 2005 Aug;14(7):798-804 PubMed
Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(2):147-55 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001 Sep;38(5):476-85 PubMed
Psychol Bull. 2000 May;126(3):390-423 PubMed
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972 Dec;24(3):285-90 PubMed
Nature. 1994 Mar 17;368(6468):239-42 PubMed
J Orofac Orthop. 2007 Nov;68(6):477-90 PubMed
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jan;42(1):19-25 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991 Jul;28(3):274-8 PubMed
Perception. 1994;23(7):823-31 PubMed
Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):149-56 PubMed
Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):172-5 PubMed
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;39(3):158-63 PubMed
Br J Plast Surg. 1987 Jul;40(4):371-6 PubMed
Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226 PubMed
J Vis. 2012 Nov 06;12(12):null PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991 Oct;28(4):385-90; discussion 390-1 PubMed
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):553-60 PubMed
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Aug;67(8):1661-6 PubMed
Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):169-72 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014 Jul;51(4):462-71 PubMed
Neuron. 2001 Nov 8;32(3):537-51 PubMed
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Oct;50(7):621-5 PubMed
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Aug;112(2):367-80 PubMed
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2010 Nov;44(4-5):191-8 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008 Jul;45(4):407-13 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011 May;48(3):259-64 PubMed
Eur J Orthod. 2005 Jun;27(3):274-85 PubMed
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013 Oct;41(7):e105-10 PubMed
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991 Apr;28(2):190-3; 193-4 discussion PubMed