Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

  • Volume 37
  • /
  • Pages.33.1-33.9
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2288-8101(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8586(eISSN)
Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Positional symmetry of porion and external auditory meatus in facial asymmetry

  • Choi, Ji Wook (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Seo Yeon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hak-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Hwy (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2015.09.03
  • Accepted : 2015.09.21
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The porion (Po) is used to construct the Frankfort horizontal (FH) plane for cephalometrics, and the external auditory meatus (EAM) is to transfer and mount the dental model with facebow. The classical assumption is that EAM represents Po by the parallel positioning. However, we are sometimes questioning about the possible positional disparity between Po and EAM, when the occlusal cant or facial midline is different from our clinical understandings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the positional parallelism of Po and EAM in facial asymmetries, and also to investigate their relationship with the maxillary occlusal cant. Methods: The 67 subjects were classified into three groups. Group I had normal subjects with facial symmetry ($1.05{\pm}0.52mm$ of average chin deviation) with minimal occlusal cant (<1.5 mm). Asymmetry group II-A had no maxillary occlusal cant (average $0.60{\pm}0.36$), while asymmetry group II-B had occlusal cant (average $3.72{\pm}1.47$). The distances of bilateral Po, EAM, and mesiobuccal cusp tips of the maxillary first molars (Mx) from the horizontal orbital plane (Orb) and the coronal plane were measured on the three-dimensional computed tomographic images. Their right and left side distance discrepancies were calculated and statistically compared. Results: EAM was located 10.3 mm below and 2.3 mm anterior to Po in group I. The vertical distances from Po to EAM of both sides were significantly different in group II-B (p=0.001), while other groups were not. Interside discrepancy of the vertical distances from EAM to Mx in group II-B also showed the significant differences, as compared with those from Po to Mx and from Orb to Mx. Conclusions: The subjects with facial asymmetry and prominent maxillary occlusal cant tend to have the symmetric position of Po but asymmetric EAM. Some caution or other measures will be helpful for them to be used during the clinical procedures.

Keywords

References

  1. Zebeib AM, Naini FB (2014) Variability of the inclination of anatomic horizontal reference planes of the craniofacial complex in relation to the true horizontal line in orthognathic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146(6):740-747 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.08.012
  2. Naini FB (2013) The Frankfort plane and head positioning in facial aesthetic analysis-the perpetuation of a myth. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 15(5):333-334 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2013.320
  3. Katsumata A, Fujishita M, Maeda M, Ariji Y, Ariji E, Langlais RP (2005) 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 99(2):212-220 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.06.072
  4. Pancherz H, Gokbuget K (1996) The reliability of the Frankfort horizontal in roentgenographic cephalometry. Eur J Orthod 18(4):367-372 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.4.367
  5. Wolford LM, Galiano A (2007) Simple and accurate method for mounting models in orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65(7):1406-1409 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.12.047
  6. Forsberg CT, Burstone CJ, Hanley KJ (1984) Diagnosis and treatment planning of skeletal asymmetry with the submental-vertical radiograph. Am J Orthod 85(3):224-237 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90062-9
  7. Baek SH, Cho IS, Chang YI, Kim MJ (2007) Skeletodental factors affecting chin point deviation in female patients with class III malocclusion and facial asymmetry: a three-dimensional analysis using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 104(5):628-639 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.002
  8. Hayashi I (2003) Morphological relationship between the cranial base and dentofacial complex obtained by reconstructive computer tomographic images. Eur J Orthod 25(4):385-391 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.4.385
  9. Kim SJ, Lee KJ, Lee SH, Baik HS (2013) Morphologic relationship between the cranial base and the mandible in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144(3):330-340 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.024
  10. Okumura H, Chen LH, Tsutsumi S, Oka M (1999) Three-dimensional virtual imaging of facial skeleton and dental morphologic condition for treatment planning in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116(2):126-131 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70208-8
  11. Ellis E, Tharanon W, Gambrell K (1992) Accuracy of face-bow transfer: effect on surgical prediction and postsurgical result. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50(6):562 https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(92)90434-2
  12. Kim MG, Lee JW, Cha KS, Chung DH, Lee SM (2014) Three-dimensional symmetry and parallelism of the skeletal and soft-tissue poria in patients with facial asymmetry. Korean J Orthod 44(2):62-68 https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.62
  13. Lee SH, Kil TJ, Park KR, Kim BC, Kim JG, Piao Z, Corre P (2014) Threedimensional architectural and structural analysis-a transition in concept and design from Delaire's cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 43(9):1154-1160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.012
  14. Park KR, Park HS, Piao Z, Kim MK, Yu HS, Seo JK et al (2013) Threedimensional vector analysis of mandibular structural asymmetry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41(4):338-344 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.031
  15. Kim HJ, Kim BC, Kim JG, Zhengguo P, Kang SH, Lee SH (2014) Construction and validation of the midsagittal reference plane based on the skull base symmetry for three-dimensional cephalometric craniofacial analysis. J Craniofac Surg 25(2):338-342 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000000380
  16. Kang YH, Kim BC, Park KR, Yon JY, Kim HJ, Tak HJ et al (2012) Visual pathway-related horizontal reference plane for three-dimensional craniofacial analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 15(4):245-254 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2012.01551.x
  17. Pelo S, Deli R, Correra P, Boniello R, Gasparini G, Moro A (2009) Evaluation of 2 different reference planes used for the study of asymmetric facial malformations. J Craniofac Surg 20(1):41-45 https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318190ddd3
  18. Padwa BL, Kaiser MO, Kaban LB (1997) Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 55(8):811 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(97)90338-4
  19. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M (1991) Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod 61(1):43-48
  20. Ricketts RM (1981) Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics: the first fifty years. Angle Orthod 51(2):115-150
  21. Madsen DP, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC (2008) Craniofacial reference plane variation and natural head position. Eur J Orthod 30(5):532-540 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn031
  22. Gateno J, Xia JJ, Teichgraeber JF (2011) New 3-dimensional cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 69(3):606-622 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.09.010

Cited by

  1. Genioplasty using a simple CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) surgical guide vol.37, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-015-0044-y