Quantitative Evaluation of Cephalometric Radiographs of Patients With Hemifacial Microsomia

Abstract

Objective:

To clarify the morphological characteristics of hemifacial microsomia (HFM) by quantitative analysis of cephalometric radiographs.

Design:

Retrospective study of imaging data.

Setting:

Imaging data were obtained from the records of Sapporo Medical University Hospital.

Patients:

A total of 183 patients with HFM.

Main Outcome Measures:

We used linear and angular measurements and analyzed the middle face and lower face.

Results:

The ratios of the affected side to the unaffected (A/U) side of the lateral distance of the mandibular condyle, the mandibular ramus height, and the length of the body of the mandible in the HFM group were significantly lower than in the control group. The inclination of the body of the mandible was significantly larger in the side with HFM than in the unaffected side, and the extent of the mandibular ramus was significantly lower than in the unaffected side. The A/U ratios of the extent of the angle of the mandible and the inclination of the body of the mandible in the HFM group were larger than in the control group. Moreover, the length and the inclination of the body of the mandible had significant correlations with the distance of the shift of the menton.

Conclusions:

It is suggested that improving the hypoplasia of the length of the body of the mandible and the extent of the angle of the mandible on the affected side will lead to more effective treatment of jaw deformity in patients with HFM.

Keywords

hemifacial microsomia cephalometry mandible skeletal morphology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahiko

Baba

Tsuji

Suzuki

Kaneko

Kindaichi

Moriyama

. Investigation of maxillofacial morphology and dental development in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(2):203–209.

Cohen

Jr Rollnick

Kaye

. Oculoauriculovertebral spectrum: an updated critique. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26(4):276–286.

Cousley

Calvert

. Current concepts in the understanding and management of hemifacial microsomia. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50(7):536–551.

Grabb

. The first and second branchial arch syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965;36(5):485–508.

Hennekam

Allanson

Krantz

. Gorlin’s Syndromes of the Head and Neck. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010:879–887.

Horgan

Padwa

LaBrie

Mulliken

. OMENS-Plus: analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32(5):405–412.

Igarashi

Miyazaki

Nakamori

Dehari

Ogi

Nagai

Sonoda

Uji

Yotsuyanagi

Hiratsuka

. Quantitative analysis of frontal facial asymmetry for patients with hemifacial microsomia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2015;27(6):764–769.

Jones

Smith

. Smith’s Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2006:738–741.

Kaban

Mulliken

Murray

. Three-dimensional approach to analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18(2):90–99.

10.

Kelberman

Tyson

Chandler

McInerney

Slee

Albert

Aymat

Botma

Calvert

Goldblatt

. Hemifacial microsomia: progress in understanding the genetic basis of a complex malformation syndrome. Hum Genet. 2001;109(6):638–645.

11.

Kragskov

Bosch

Gyldensted

Sindet-Pedersen

. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(2):111–116.

12.

Wang

Yang

. A cephalometric analysis of hemifacial microsomia. Arch Otolaryngol Rhinol. 2015;1(1):028–033.

13.

Meazzini

Mazzoleni

Gabriele

Bozzetti

. Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in hemifacial microsomia: long-term follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2005;33(6):370–376.

14.

Mulliken

Kaban

. Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia in childhood. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14(1):91–100.

15.

Murray

Kaban

Mulliken

. Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;74(2):186–199.

16.

Nakajima

Sakamoto

Tamada

Ogata

Kishi

Sakamoto

. Maxillary-driven simultaneous maxillo-mandibular distraction for hemifacial microsomia. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39(8):549–553.

17.

Poswillo

. The pathogenesis of the first and second branchial arch syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973;35(3):302–328.

18.

Pruzansky

. Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defects. 1969;5(2):120–129.

19.

Rollnick

Kaye

Nagatoshi

Hauck

Martin

. Oculoauriculovertebral dysplasia and variants: phenotypic characteristics of 294 patients. Am J Med Genet. 1987;26(2):361–375.

20.

Suzuki

Miyazaki

Igarashi

Dehari

Kobayashi

Miki

Ogi

Nagai

Sonoda

Yotsuyanagi

. Relationship between mandibular ramus height and masticatory muscle function in patients with unilateral hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(1):43–52.

21.

Vento

LaBrie

Mulliken

. The O.M.E.N.S. classification of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(1):68–76; discussion 77.

22.

Wink

Goldstein

Paliga

Taylor

Bartlett

. The mandibular deformity in hemifacial microsomia: a reassessment of the Pruzansky and Kaban classification. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):174e–181e.