4.3 Article

Three-dimensional longitudinal changes in craniofacial growth in untreated hemifacial microsomia patients with cone-beam computed tomography

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.015

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the concept that the affected and contralateral sides do not grow at the same rate in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Changes in the cranial base, maxilla, mandible, and occlusal plane were evaluated on 3-dimensional images from cone-beam computed tomography data in untreated patients. Methods: Six patients were classified as having mandibular Pruzansky/Kaban type I, IIA, or IIB hemifacial microsomia. Cone-beam computed tomography (MercuRay; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) scans were taken before orthodontic treatment during both growth and postpuberty periods. Results: The cranial base as defined by the position of the mastoid process was in a different position between the affected and contralateral control sides. The nasomaxillary length or height was shorter on the affected side for all 6 patients with hemifacial microsomia regardless of its severity, and it grew less than on the contralateral control side in 5 of the 6 patients. The occlusal plane angle became more inclined in 4 of the 6 patients. The mandibular ramus was shorter on the affected side in all patients and grew less on the affected side in 5 of the 6 patients. The mandibular body grew slower, the same, or faster than on the control side. Conclusions: The cranial base, position of the condyle, lengths of the condyle and ramus, and positions of the gonial angle and condyle can vary between the affected and contralateral control sides of patients with hemifacial microsomia, with the ramus and nasomaxillary length usually growing slower than they grow on the control side. These results suggest that many factors affect the growth rate of the craniofacial region and, specifically, the mandible in patients with hemifacial microsomia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据