To assess modelled facial development of infants with unilateral cleft lip (CL) and cleft lip and palate (UCLP) compared to controls up to two years of age.
Design and Participants
A total of 209 facial images of children (CL: n = 37; UCLP: n = 39; controls: n = 137) were obtained in four age categories (T0 = 0.2–0.5; T1 = 0.6–1.0; T2 = 1.1–1.5; T3 = 1.6–2.0 years) and were evaluated using stereophotogrammetry and geometric morphometry. All patients underwent lip surgery before T0, patients with UCLP underwent palatoplasty (T0, T1 before palatoplasty; T2, T3 after palatoplasty).
Results
In patients with CL, the forehead was significantly retracted (p ≤ 0.001), while the supraorbital and ocular regions were prominent (p ≤ 0.001). The oronasal region appeared convex (p ≤ 0.001). The lower lip and chin were non-significantly protruded. In patients with UCLP, a significantly retracted forehead and prominent supraorbital region were apparent (p ≤ 0.001). A retrusive oronasal region (p ≤ 0.001) was observed in the middle face. The chin was anteriorly protruded (p ≤ 0.01). No progression of deviations was found with increasing age. After the first year, a slight improvement in the morphological features became apparent. The shape variability of the clefts and controls overlapped, suggesting a comparable modelled facial development.
Conclusions
The facial morphology of individuals with cleft was comparable to the norm. Shape deviation was apparent in the oronasal region, forehead, and chin, which minimised with increasing age even in complete clefts.
MoriANakajimaTKanekoTSakumaHAokiY. Analysis of 109 Japanese children’s lip and nose shapes using 3-dimensional digitizer. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58(3):318–329. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2004.11.019
2.
DuffySNoarJHEvansRDSandersR. Three-dimensional analysis of the child cleft face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(2):137–144.
3.
XuXKwonH-JShiBZhengQYinHLiC. Influence of different palate repair protocols on facial growth in unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2015;43(1):43–47. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2014.10.007
4.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5–77.
5.
ReiserDESkoogDVAndlin-SobockiDA. Early dimensional changes in maxillary cleft size and arch dimensions of children with cleft lip and palate and cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2013;50(4):481–490. doi:10.1597/11-003
6.
SakodaKLJorgePKCarraraCFC, et al.3D Analysis of effects of primary surgeries in cleft lip/palate children during the first two years of life. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31(5):3–8.
7.
NakamuraNSuzukiATakahashiHHondaYSasaguriMOhishiM. A longitudinal study on influence of primary facial deformities on maxillofacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2005;42(6):633–640. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/03-151.1
8.
Capelozza FilhoLCorrea NormandoADDa Silva FilhoOG. Isolated influences of lip and palate surgery on facial growth: Coparison of operated and unoperated male adults with UCLP. Cleft Palate J. 1996;33(1):51–56.
9.
AlazzawiOMoriokaDMiyabeMTosaYOhkuboFYoshimotoS. Nasolabial growth in individuals with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A preliminary study of longitudinal observation using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(5):e449–e451. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003651
10.
KrimmelMKlubaSBreidtM, et al.Three-dimensional assessment of facial development in children with unilateral cleft lip with and without alveolar cleft. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(1):313–316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318275ed60
11.
KrimmelMBreidtMBacherM, et al.Three-Dimensional normal facial growth from birth to the age of 7 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):490–501. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001612
12.
YamadaTMoriYMinamiKMishimaKTsukamotoY. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology in normal Japanese children as control data for cleft surgery. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2002;39(5):517–526. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0517_tdaofm_2.0.co_2
13.
MoriokaDSatoNKusanoT, et al.Difference in nasolabial features between awake and asleep infants with unilateral cleft lip: Anthropometric measurements using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. J Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg Off Publ Eur Assoc Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surg. 2015;43(10):2093–2099. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.09.002
14.
AyoubDAGarrahyDAMillettDD, et al.Three-Dimensional assessment of early surgical outcome in repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: Part 1. Nasal Changes. 2011;48(5):571–577. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/09-147
15.
BronsSMeulsteeJWLoonenTGJ, et al.Three-dimensional facial development of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate during the first year of life in comparison with normative average faces. PeerJ. 2019;2019(7):e7302. doi:https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ.7302
16.
KrimmelMKlubaSBacherMDietzKReinertS. Digital surface photogrammetry for anthropometric analysis of the cleft infant face. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2006;43(3):350–355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/05-077.1
17.
TseRBoothLKeysK, et al.Reliability of nasolabial anthropometric measures using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry in infants with unrepaired unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):530–542. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000014
18.
MoriokaDMandranoNFujimotoH, et al.Longitudinal follow-up of individuals with cleft lip using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(5):1261–1265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004434
19.
ManciniLGibsonTLGraysonBHFloresRLStaffenbergDShetyePR. Three-Dimensional soft tissue nasal changes after nasoalveolar molding and primary cheilorhinoplasty in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2019;56(1):31–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618771427
20.
MoslerováVDadákováMDupejJ, et al.Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry in preschool patients with orofacial clefts after neonatal cheiloplasty. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;108:40–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.02.023
21.
DadákováMCagáňováVDupejJHoffmannováEBorskýJVelemínskáJ. Three-dimensional evaluation of facial morphology in pre-school cleft patients following neonatal cheiloplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(9):1109–1116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.023
22.
De OnisMHabichtJP. Anthropometric reference data for international use: Recommendations from a world health organization expert committee. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;64(4):650–658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/64.4.650
23.
TennisonCW. The repair of the unilateral cleft lip by the stencil method. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946). 1s952;9(2):115–120.
24.
JurovčíkMBorskýJDytrychP, et al.First symptoms of secretory otitis media in newborns operated for cleft defect in a ten year group. Otorinolaryngol a Foniatr. 2020;69(2):55–61.
25.
BorskýJVelemínskáJJurovčíkM, et al.Successful early neonatal repair of cleft lip within first 8 days of life. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(11):1616–1626. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.07.031
WhiteJDOrtega-CastrillonAVirgoC, et al.Sources of variation in the 3dMDface and Vectra H1 3D facial imaging systems. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61333-3
28.
VerhulstAHolMVreekenRBeckingAUlrichDMaalT. Three-Dimensional imaging of the face: A comparison between three different imaging modalities. Aesthetic Surg J. 2018;38(6):579–585. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx227
29.
CamisonLBykowskiMLeeWW, et al.Validation of the Vectra H1 portable three-dimensional photogrammetry system for facial imaging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(3):403–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.08.008
30.
LibertonDKVermaPContrattoALeeJS. Development and validation of novel three-dimensional craniofacial landmarks on cone-beam computed tomography scans. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(7):e611–e615. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005627
31.
HuttonTJBuxtonBFHammondP. Dense surface models of the human face. IEEE Comput Soc. 2001:153–160.
MydlováMDupejJKoudelováJVelemínskáJ. Sexual dimorphism of facial appearance in ageing human adults: A cross-sectional study. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;257(519):1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.09.008
34.
Cramon-Taubadel vonNFrazierCBMirazón LahrM. The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: Theory, methods, and modifications. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007;134(1):24–35.
35.
Peres-NetoPRJacksonDASomersKM. How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2005;49(4):974–997. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.06.015
36.
AyoubAGarrahyAHoodC, et al.Validation of a vision-based, three-dimensional facial imaging system. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2003;40(5):523–529. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/02-067
37.
KrimmelMSchuckNBacherMReinertS. Facial surface changes after cleft alveolar bone grafting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(1):80–83. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.03.009
38.
HoodCAHoseyMTBockMWhiteJRayAAyoubAF. Facial characterization of infants with cleft lip and palate using a three-dimensional capture technique. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 2004;41(1):27–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/02-143
39.
SinghGLevy-BercowskiDYáñezMSantiagoP. Three-dimensional facial morphology following surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate in patients after nasoalveolar molding. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10(3):161–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00390.x
40.
BugaighisIO’HigginsPTiddemanBMattickCBen AliOHobsonR. Three-dimensional geometric morphometrics applied to the study of children with cleft lip and/or palate from the North East of England. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(5):514–521. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp140
41.
BugaighisIMattickCRTiddemanBHobsonR. 3D Asymmetry of operated children with oral clefts. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2014;17(1):27–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12026
42.
WongKWFKeelingAAchalKKhambayB. Using three-dimensional average facial meshes to determine nasolabial soft tissue deformity in adult UCLP patients. Surg. 2019;17(1):19–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2018.04.006
43.
ZreaqatMHassanRHalimAS. Facial dimensions of Malay children with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: A three dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(6):783–788. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2012.02.003
44.
HoodCABockMHoseyMTBowmanAAyoubAF. Facial asymmetry - 3D assessment of infants with cleft lip & palate. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(6):404–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00496.x
45.
Al-RudainyDJuXMehendaleFAyoubA. Assessment of facial asymmetry before and after the surgical repair of cleft lip in unilateral cleft lip and palate cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(3):411–419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.08.007
46.
KreiborgSHermannNVDarvannTA. Characteristics of facial morphology and growth in Infants with Clefts. Cleft Lip and Palate. 2006;50:59–83.
47.
IshiguroKKrogmanWMMazaheriMHardingRL. A longitudinal study of morphological craniofacial patterns via P-A x-ray headfilms in cleft patients from birth to six years of age. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13:104–126.
48.
DjordjevicJLewisBMDonaghyCE, et al.Facial shape and asymmetry in 5-year-old children with repaired unilateral cleft lip and/or palate: An exploratory study using laser scanning. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(5):497–505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs075
49.
UrbanováWKoťováMVaňkováZ. The incidence of cleft lip and palate in the Czech Republic in 1994-2008. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2013;114(8):474–479. doi:https://doi.org/10.4149/bll_2013_099
50.
MatthewsHSPeningtonAJHardimanR, et al.Modelling 3D craniofacial growth trajectories for population comparison and classification illustrated using sex-differences. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):4771. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22752-5
