BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Judgement of nasolabial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate (CLP) is a vital component of assessment of treatment outcome. It is usually performed based on two-dimensional (2D) facial photographs. An increasing use of three-dimensional (3D) imaging warrants an assessment if 3D images can substitute 2D photographs during aesthetic evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare reliability of rating nasolabial appearance on 3D images and standard 2D photographs in prepubertal children. METHODS: Forty subjects (age: 8.8-12) with unilateral CLP treated according to a standardized protocol, who had 2D and 3D facial images were selected. Eight lay raters assessed nasal form, nasal deviation, vermilion border, and nasolabial profile on cropped 2D and 3D images using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, raters answer two questions: 1. Do 2D or 3D images provide more information on nasolabial aesthetics? and 2. Is aesthetic evaluation easier on 2D or 3D images? RESULTS: Intrarater agreement demonstrated a better reliability of ratings performed on 3D images than 2D images (correlation coefficients for 3D images ranged from 0.733 to 0.857; for 2D images from 0.151 to 0.611). The mean scores showed, however, no difference between 2D and 3D formats (>0.05). 3D images were regarded more informative than 2D images (P = 0.001) but probably more difficult to evaluate (P = 0.06). LIMITATIONS: Basal view of the nose was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D images seem better than 2D images for rating nasolabial aesthetics but raters should familiarize themselves with them prior to rating.

Community and Restorative Dentistry Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen The Netherlands

Department of Orthodontics Palacky University Olomouc Czech Republic and *****Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics University of Bern Bern Switzerland

Division of Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery Comenius University Bratislava Slovakia Departments of

Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Langlois J.H. Kalakanis L. Rubenstein A.J. Larson A. Hallam M. and Smoot M (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. PubMed

Weeden J. and Sabini J (2005) Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653. PubMed

Currie T.E. and Little A.C (2009) The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 409–416.

Little A.C. Jones B.C. and DeBruine L.M (2011) Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1638–1659. PubMed PMC

Ayoub A. Bell A. Simmons D. Bowman A. Brown D. Lo T.W. and Xiao Y (2011) 3D assessment of lip scarring and residual dysmorphology following surgical repair of cleft lip and palate: a preliminary study. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 48, 379–387. PubMed

Bugaighis I. Tiddeman B. Mattick C.R. and Hobson R (2012) 3D comparison of average faces in subjects with oral clefts. European Journal Orthodontics, 36, 365–372 PubMed

Kau C.H. Medina L. English J.D. Xia J. Gateno J. and Teichgraber J (2011) A comparison between landmark and surface shape measurements in a sample of cleft lip and palate patients after secondary alveolar bone grafting. Orthodontics (Chic), 12, 188–195. PubMed PMC

Ferrario V.F. Sforza C. Dellavia C. Tartaglia G.M. Sozzi D. and Caru A (2003) A quantitative three-dimensional assessment of abnormal variations in facial soft tissues of adult patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 40, 544–549. PubMed

Stauber I. Vairaktaris E. Holst A. Schuster M. Hirschfelder U. Neukam F.W. and Nkenke E (2008) Three-dimensional analysis of facial symmetry in cleft lip and palate patients using optical surface data. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, 69, 268–282. PubMed

Krimmel M. Kluba S. Breidt M. Bacher M. Dietz K. Buelthoff H. and Reinert S (2009) Three-dimensional assessment of facial development in children with Pierre Robin sequence. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 20, 2055–2060. PubMed

Kuijpers M.A. Chiu Y.T. Nada R.M. Carels C.E. and Fudalej P.S (2014) Three-dimensional imaging methods for quantitative analysis of facial soft tissues and skeletal morphology in patients with orofacial clefts: a systematic review. PLoS One, 9, e93442. PubMed PMC

Al-Omari I. Millett D.T. and Ayoub A.F (2005) Methods of assessment of cleft-related facial deformity: a review. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 42, 145–156. PubMed

Mosmuller D.G. Griot J.P. Bijnen C.L. and Niessen F.B (2013) Scoring systems of cleft-related facial deformities: a review of literature. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 50, 286–296. PubMed

Al-Omari I. Millett D.T. Ayoub A. Bock M. Ray A. Dunaway D. and Crampin L (2003) An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 40, 530–537. PubMed

Shaw W.C. Semb G. Nelson P. Brattström V. Mølsted K. Prahl-Andersen B. and Gundlach K.K (2001) The Eurocleft Project 1996–2000. Overview. Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, 29, 131–140 PubMed

Long R.E. Jr. Hathaway R. Daskalogiannakis J. Mercado A. Russell K. Cohen M. Semb G. and Shaw W (2011) The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 48, 239–243. PubMed

Asher-McDade C. Roberts C. Shaw W.C. and Gallager C (1991) Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 28, 385–390 PubMed

Fudalej S.A. Desmedt D. Bronkhorst E. and Fudalej P.S (2015) Comparison of three methods of rating nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal (under revision). PubMed

Asher-McDade C. Brattstrom V. Dahl E. McWilliam J. Molsted K. Plint D.A. Prahl-Andersen B. Semb G. Shaw W.C. and The R.P (1992) A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal, 29, 409–412. PubMed

Becker M. Svensson H. and Jacobsson S (1998) Clinical examination compared with morphometry of digital photographs for evaluation of repaired cleft lips. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, 32, 301–306. PubMed

Johnson N. and Sandy J (2003) An aesthetic index for evaluation of cleft repair. European Journal of Orthodontics, 25, 243–249. PubMed

Papamanou D.A. Gkantidis N. Topouzelis N. and Christou P (2012) Appreciation of cleft lip and palate treatment outcome by professionals and laypeople. European Journal of Orthodontics, 34, 553–560. PubMed

Gkantidis N. Papamanou D.A. Christou P. and Topouzelis N (2013) Aesthetic outcome of cleft lip and palate treatment. Perceptions of patients, families, and health professionals compared to the general public. Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, 41, e105–e110. PubMed