A three-dimensional comparison of a morphometric and conventional cephalometric midsagittal planes for craniofacial asymmetry

Morphometric methods are used in biology to study object symmetry in living organisms and to determine the true plane of symmetry. The aim of this study was to determine if there are clinical differences between three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric midsagittal planes used to describe craniofacial asymmetry and a true symmetry plane derived from a morphometric method based on visible facial features. The sample consisted of 14 dry skulls (9 symmetric and 5 asymmetric) with metallic markers which were imaged with cone-beam computed tomography. An error study and statistical analysis were performed to validate the morphometric method. The morphometric and conventional cephalometric planes were constructed and compared. The 3D cephalometric planes constructed as perpendiculars to the Frankfort horizontal plane resembled the morphometric plane the most in both the symmetric and asymmetric groups with mean differences of less than 1.00 mm for most variables. However, the standard deviations were often large and clinically significant for these variables. There were clinically relevant differences (>1.00 mm) between the different 3D cephalometric midsagittal planes and the true plane of symmetry determined by the visible facial features. The difference between 3D cephalometric midsagittal planes and the true plane of symmetry determined by the visible facial features were clinically relevant. Care has to be taken using cephalometric midsagittal planes for diagnosis and treatment planning of craniofacial asymmetry as they might differ from the true plane of symmetry as determined by morphometrics

Domestic Violence and Health Care: Opening Pandora¿s Box ¿ Challenges and Dilemmas

In this article we take a critical stance toward the rational progressive narrative surrounding the integration of domestic violence within health care. Whilst changes in recent UK policy and practice have resulted in several tangible benefits, it is argued that there may be hidden dilemmas and challenges. We suggest that the medical model of care and its discursive practices position women as individually accountable for domestic violence-related symptoms and injuries. This may not only be ineffective in terms of service provision but could also have the potential to reduce the political significance of domestic violence as an issue of concern for all women. Furthermore, it is argued that the use of specific metaphors enables practitioners to distance themselves from interactions that may prove to be less comfortable and provide less than certain outcomes. Our analysis explores the possibilities for change that might currently be available. This would appear to involve a consideration of alternative discourses and the reformulation of power relations and subject positions in health care