Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts

SummaryObjectives: Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. Methods: Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. Results: Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). Limitations: Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. Conclusion: Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without cleft

Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts

OBJECTIVES Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. METHODS Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. RESULTS Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). LIMITATIONS Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. CONCLUSION Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without clefts

Nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images

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