Facial Asymmetry in Children with Unicoronal Synostosis who have Undergone Craniofacial Reconstruction in Infancy

• Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal 2016-07, Vol.53 (4), p.385-393
• Main Authors: Öwall, Louise, Darvann, Tron A., Larsen, Per, Hove, Hanne D., Hermann, Nuno V., Bøgeskov, Lars, Kreiborg, Sven
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Age; Asymmetry; Child; Child, Preschool; Craniosynostoses - surgery; Dentistry; Facial Asymmetry; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Frontal Bone - surgery; Humans; Infant; Male; Maxillofacial surgery; Methods; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Studies; Surgical outcomes; Symmetry
• ISSN: 1055-6656; 1545-1569
• DOI: 10.1597/15-089

Objective Quantitatively assess 3D spatially detailed soft-tissue facial asymmetry in children who had undergone craniofacial reconstruction for Unicoronal Synostosis (UCS), and compare the facial asymmetry to control patients. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in the facial asymmetry between the groups. Design Clinical, retrospective follow-up study. Methodological study. Setting Primary care center. Patients/Participants Twenty-two children with UCS were selected after review of records. Inclusion criteria: isolated UCS; surgically treated for UCS within the first 19 months of life, without secondary reconstruction; and DNA analysis for the Muenke mutation. An age- and sex-matched control group was employed. Interventions The UCS group had undergone bilateral craniotomy of the frontal bone with unilateral supraorbital rim advancement. Main outcome Measure(s) Using 3D surface scanning, a detailed map of 3D asymmetry presenting the amount of asymmetry in the sagittal, vertical, and transverse directions was calculated for six facial subregions. Results The facial asymmetry in the UCS group was significantly larger than in the control group for all regions, to the largest extent in the sagittal direction (level of significance: 5%). The regions with the most pronounced asymmetry were cheeks (mean: 5.45 mm; SD: 1.83 mm), forehead (mean: 5.00 mm; SD: 1.57 mm), and eyes (mean: 4.26 mm; SD: 1.44 mm). Conclusions Ninety percent of the UCS patients in the study had significant facial asymmetry throughout the facial area. The study demonstrates a methodology of facial asymmetry quantification well suited for soft-tissue surgical outcome evaluations and long-term follow-up studies in patients with craniofacial anomalies.