Congenital midfacial hypoplasia often requires intensive treatments and is a typical condition for the Binder phenotype and syndromic craniosynostosis. The growth trait of the midfacial skeleton during the early fetal period has been assumed to be critical for such an anomaly. However, previous embryological studies using 2-dimensional analyses and specimens during the late fetal period have not been sufficient to reveal it.
Objective:
To understand the morphogenesis of the midfacial skeleton in the early fetal period via 3-dimensional quantification of the growth trait and investigation of the developmental association between the growth centers and midface.
Methods:
Magnetic resonance images were obtained from 60 human fetuses during the early fetal period. Three-dimensional shape changes in the craniofacial skeleton along growth were quantified and visualized using geometric morphometrics. Subsequently, the degree of development was computed. Furthermore, the developmental association between the growth centers and the midfacial skeleton was statistically investigated and visualized.
Results:
The zygoma expanded drastically in the anterolateral dimension, and the lateral part of the maxilla developed forward until approximately 13 weeks of gestation. The growth centers such as the nasal septum and anterior portion of the sphenoid were highly associated with the forward growth of the midfacial skeleton (RV = 0.589; P < .001).
Conclusions:
The development of the midface, especially of the zygoma, before 13 weeks of gestation played an essential role in the midfacial development. Moreover, the growth centers had a strong association with midfacial forward growth before birth.
AdamsDCOtárola-CastilloE. Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4(4):393–399.
2.
BastirM. A systems-model for the morphological analysis of integration and modularity in human craniofacial evolution. J Anthropol Sci. 2008;86:37–58.
3.
BastirMRosasA. Cranial base topology and basic trends in the facial evolution of Homo. J Hum Evol. 2016;91:26–35.
4.
BurdiAR. Cephalometric growth analyses of the human upper face region during the last two trimesters of gestation. Am J Anat. 1969;125(1):113–122.
5.
BurdiARKunsnetzABVenesJLGebarskiSS. The natural history and pathogenesis of the cranial coronal ring articulations: implications in understanding the pathogenesis of the Crouzon craniostenotic defects. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(1):28–39.
6.
CarachBWoodsMScottP. Maxillonasal dysplasia (binder syndrome): a lateral cephalometric assessment. Aust Orthod J. 2002;18(2):82–91.
7.
ClaesPLibertonDKDanielsKRosanaKMQuillenEEPearsonLNMcEvoyBBauchetMZaidiAAYaoWet al.Modeling 3D facial shape from DNA. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(3):e1004224.
8.
ColinETouraineRLevaillantJMPasquierLBoussionFFerryMGuichetABarthMMercierAGerard-BlanluetMet al.Binder phenotype in mothers affected with autoimmune disorders. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2012;25(8):1413–1418.
9.
CookKPrefumoFPrestiFHomfrayTCampbellS. The prenatal diagnosis of Binder syndrome before 24 weeks of gestation: Case report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(6):578–581.
DadákováMCagáňováVDupejJHoffmannováEBorskýJVelemínskáJ. Three-dimensional evaluation of facial morphology in pre-school cleft patients following neonatal cheiloplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(9):1109–1116.
12.
DiewertVM. A morphometric analysis of craniofacial growth and changes in spatial relations during secondary palatal development in human embryos and fetuses. Am J Anat. 1983;167(4):495–522.
13.
DiewertVM. Development of human craniofacial morphology during the late embryonic and early fetal periods. Dev Hum Craniofac Morphol. 1985;88(1):64–76.
14.
EsenlikEŞenerEHYilmazHHMalasMA. Cephalometric investigation of craniomaxillofacial structures during the prenatal period: a cadaver study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):217–227.
15.
ForteAJAlonsoNPersingJAPfaffMJBrooksEDSteinbacherDM. Analysis of midface retrusion in Crouzon and Apert syndromes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(2):285–293.
16.
HallJG. Pena-Shokeir phenotype (fetal akinesia deformation sequence) revisited. Birth Defects Res Part A Clin Mol Teratol. 2009;85(8):677–694.
17.
HallJG. Importance of muscle movement for normal craniofacial development. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(5):1336–1338.
18.
HallBKPreciousDS. Cleft lip, nose, and palate: the nasal septum as the pacemaker for midfacial growth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(4):442–447.
19.
HennessyRJMcLearieSKinsellaAWaddingtonJL. Facial surface analysis by 3D laser scanning and geometric morphometrics in relation to sexual dimorphism in cerebral-craniofacial morphogenesis and cognitive function. J Anat. 2005;207(3):283–295.
20.
HeudeÉRivalsICoulyGLeviG. Masticatory muscle defects in hemifacial microsomia: a new embryological concept. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2011;155A(8):1991–1995.
21.
HongoY. Evolution of male dimorphic allometry in a population of the Japanese horned beetle Trypoxylus dichotomus septentrionalis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;62(2):245–253.
22.
HoweAMHawkinsJKWebsterWS. The growth of the nasal septum in the 6-9 week period of foetal development—Warfarin embryopathy offers a new insight into prenatal facial development. Aust Dent J. 2004;49(4):171–176.
23.
HumphreyT. Development of oral and facial motor mechanisms in human fetuses and their relation to craniofacial growth. J Dent Res. 1971;50(6):1428–1441.
24.
JohnstonLE. A cephalometric investigation of the sagittal growth of the second trimester fetal face. Anat Rec. 1974;178(3):623–630.
25.
JulienC. Morphometrics with R. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2008.
26.
KatsubeMYamadaSMiyazakiRYamaguchiYMakishimaHTakakuwaTYamamotoAFujiiYMorimotoNItoTet al.Quantitation of nasal development in the early prenatal period using geometric morphometrics and MRI: a new insight into the critical period of Binder phenotype. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(9):907–915.
27.
KauCHHunterLMHingstonEJ. A different look: 3-dimensional facial imaging of a child with Binder syndrome. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(5):704–709.
KlingenbergCP. Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses. Evol Dev. 2009;11(4):405–421.
30.
KlingenbergCP. Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric morphometrics. Dev Genes Evol. 2016;226(3):113–137.
31.
KotiahoJS. The discrimination of alternative male morphologies. Behav Ecol. 2001;12(5):553–557.
32.
KoudelováJBrůžekJCagáňováVKrajíčekVVelemínskáJ. Development of facial sexual dimorphism in children aged between 12 and 15 years: a three-dimensional longitudinal study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(3):175–184.
33.
LajeunieECameronREl GhouzziVde ParsevalNJourneauPGonzalesMDelezoideALBonaventureJLe MerrerMRenierD. Clinical variability in patients with Apert’s syndrome. J Neurosurg. 1999;90(3):443–447.
34.
LauritaJKoyamaEChinBTaylorJALakinGEHankensonKDBartlettSPNahHD. The Muenke syndrome mutation (FgfR3P244R) causes cranial base shortening associated with growth plate dysfunction and premature perichondrial ossification in murine basicranial synchondroses. Dev Dyn. 2011;240(11):2584–2596.
35.
LevaillantJMMoeglinDZouitenKBucourtMBurglenLSoupreVBaumannCJaquemontMLTouraineRPicardAet al.Binder phenotype: clinical and etiological heterogeneity of the so-called Binder maxillonasal dysplasia in prenatally diagnosed cases, and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29(2):140–150.
36.
LiebermanDE. Sphenoid shortening and the evolution of modern human cranial shape. Nature. 1998;393(6681):158–162.
37.
MalasMADoganSHilal EvcilEDesdiciogluK. Fetal development of the hand, digits and digit ratio (2D: 4D). Early Hum Dev. 2006;82(7):469–475.
38.
ManningJTFinkB. Are there any “direct” human studies of digit ratio (2D:4D) and measures of prenatal sex hormones?Early Hum Dev. 2017;113:73–74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28927753
MatthewsHPeningtonTSaeyIHallidayJMuggliEClaesP. Spatially dense morphometrics of craniofacial sexual dimorphism in 1-year-olds. J Anat. 2016;229(4):549–559.
41.
MazzaferroDMNaranSWesAMRunyanCMVossoughABartlettSPTaylorJA. Incidence of cranial base suture fusion in infants with craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4):559e–570e.
42.
McGrathJGeretyPADerderianCASteinbacherDMVossoughABartlettSPNahHDTaylorJA. Differential closure of the spheno-occipital synchondrosis in syndromic craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5):681–689.
43.
MitteroeckerPBooksteinFMacLeadN. The conceptual and statistical relationship between modularity and morphological integration. Syst Biol. 2007;56(5):818–836.
44.
MorimotoNOgiharaNKatayamaKShiotaK. Three-dimensional ontogenetic shape changes in the human cranium during the fetal period. J Anat. 2008;212(5):627–635.
45.
NeauxDGuyFGilissenECoudyzerWDucrocqS. Covariation between midline cranial base, lateral basicranium, and face in modern humans and chimpanzees: a 3D geometric morphometric analysis. Anat Rec. 2013;296(4):568–579.
46.
NikkhahDPonniahARuffCDunawayD. Planning surgical reconstruction in Treacher-Collins syndrome using virtual simulation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):790e–805e.
47.
OkamotoKItoJTokiguchiSFurusawaT. High-resolution CT findings in the development of the sphenooccipital synchondrosis. Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(1):117–120.
48.
ParadowskaAZnamirowska-BajowskaASzelkagJ. Facial features in Binder’s syndrome–Review of the literature. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2010;19(6):765–769.
49.
ParsonsTESchmidtEJBoughnerJCJamniczkyHAMarcucioRSHallgrimssonB. Epigenetic integration of the developing brain and face. Dev Dyn. 2011;240(10):2233–2244.
50.
PerlynCADeLeonVBBabbsCGovierDBurellLDarvannTKreiborgSMorriss-KayG. The craniofacial phenotype of the Crouzon mouse: analysis of a model for syndromic craniosynostosis using three-dimensional microCT. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(6):740–747.
51.
PowellTVBrodieAG. Closure of the spheno-occipital synchondrosis. Anat Rec. 1962;147:15–23.
52.
R Development Core Team. R. A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.1). R foundation for statistical computing. http://cran.r-project.Org. Updated June 30, 2017. Accessed August 1, 2017.
53.
RanlyDM. Craniofacial Growth. Dent Clin North Am. 2000;44(3):457–470.
54.
RenierDLajeunieEArnaudEMarchacD. Management of craniosynostoses. Childs Nerv Syst. 2000;16(10-11):645–658.
55.
RohlfFJCortiM. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Syst Biol. 2000;49(4):740–753.
56.
RosasABastirM. Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002;117(3):236–245.
57.
RosenbergPArlisHRHaworthRDHeierLHoffmanLLaTrentaG. The role of the cranial base in facial growth: experimental craniofacial synostosis in the rabbit. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99(5):1396–1407.
58.
SahotaDSLeungTYLeungTNChanOKLauTK. Fetal crown-rump length and estimation of gestational age in an ethnic Chinese population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(2):157–160.
59.
ScottJH. The cranial base. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1958;16(3):319–348.
60.
TakakuwaT. 3D Analysis of human embryos and fetuses using digitized datasets from the Kyoto collection. Anat Rec. 2018;301(6):960–969.
61.
VisserRRuffCFAngulliaFPonniahAJJeelaniNUBrittoJAKoudstaalMJDunawayDJ. Evaluating the efficacy of monobloc distraction in the Crouzon-Pfeiffer craniofacial deformity using geometric morphometrics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(2):477e–487e.
62.
WernerHCastroPDaltroPLopesJRibeiroGJúniorEA. Prenatal diagnosis of Apert syndrome using ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and three-dimensional virtual/physical models: three case series and literature review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2018;34(8):1563–1571.
63.
WongKRPfaffMJChangCCTraviesoRSteinbacherDM. A range of malar and masseteric hypoplasia exists in Treacher Collins syndrome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2013;66(1):43–46.
64.
YamadaSNagaiMHagiwaraM. The 40th anniversary of the congenital anomaly research center, Kyoto University graduate school of medicine. Anat Rec. 2018a;301(6):947–950.
65.
YamadaSNakanoSMakishimaHMotokiT. Novel Imaging modalities for human embryology and applications in education. Anat Rec. 2018b;301(6):1004–1011.
66.
YamadaSUwabeCNakatsu-KomatsuTMinekuraYIwakuraMMotokiTNishimiyaKIiyamaMKakushoKMinohMet al.Graphic and movie illustrations of human prenatal development and their application to embryological education based on the human embryo specimens in the Kyoto collection. Dev Dyn. 2006;235(2):468–477.
67.
YamaguchiYMiyazakiRKamataniMUwabeCMakishimaHNagaiMKatsubeMYamamotoAImaiHKoseKet al.Three-dimensional models of the segmented human fetal brain generated by magnetic resonance imaging. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 2018;58(2):48–55.
68.
ZollikoferCPEPonce de LeónMS. Neanderthals and Modern Humans—Chimps and Bonobos: Similarities and Differences. New York, NY: Springer; 2008.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
