Facial Asymmetry in Nonsyndromic and Muenke Syndrome–Associated Unicoronal Synostosis: A 3-Dimensional Study Based on Facial Surfaces Extracted From CT Scans
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2021
Facial Asymmetry in Nonsyndromic and Muenke Syndrome–Associated Unicoronal Synostosis: A 3-Dimensional Study Based on Facial Surfaces Extracted From CT Scans
To quantify soft tissue facial asymmetry (FA) in children with nonsyndromic and Muenke syndrome–associated unicoronal synostosis (NS-UCS and MS-UCS), hypothesizing that MS-UCS presents with significantly larger FA than NS-UCS.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Patients and Methods:
Twenty-one children (mean age: 0.6 years; range: 0.1-1.4 years) were included in the study (NS-UCS = 14; MS-UCS = 7). From presurgical computed tomography scans, facial surfaces were constructed for analysis. A landmark guided atlas was deformed to match each patient’s surface, obtaining spatially detailed left-right point correspondence. Facial asymmetry was calculated in each surface point across the face, as the length (mm) of an asymmetry vector, with its Cartesian components providing 3 directions. Mean FA was calculated for the full face, and the forehead, eye, nose, cheek, mouth, and chin regions.
Results:
For the full face, a significant difference of 2.4 mm (P = .001) was calculated between the 2 groups, predominately in the transverse direction (1.5 mm; P < .001). The forehead and chin regions presented with the largest significant difference, 3.5 mm (P = .002) and 3.2 mm (P < .001), respectively; followed by the eye (2.4 mm; P = .004), cheek (2.2 mm; P = .004), nose (1.7 mm; P = .001), and mouth (1.4 mm; P = .009) regions. The transverse direction presented with the largest significant difference in the forehead, chin, mouth, and nose regions, the sagittal direction in the cheek region, and the vertical direction in the eye region.
Conclusions:
Muenke syndrome–associated unicoronal synostosis presented with significantly larger FA in all regions compared to NS-UCS. The largest significant differences were found in the forehead and chin regions, predominantly in the transverse direction.
AlmukhtarAAyoubAKhambayBMcDonaldJJuX. State-of-the-art three-dimensional analysis of soft tissue changes following Le Fort I maxillary advancement. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;54(7):812–817.
2.
CassilethLBBartlettSPGlatPMGrippKWMuenkeMZackaiEHWhitakerLA. Clinical characteristics of patients with unicoronal synostosis and mutations of fibroblast growth factor receptor 3: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):1849–1854.
3.
ChoMJHallacRRRameshJSeawardJRHermannNVDarvannTALipiraAKaneAA. Quantifying normal craniofacial form and baseline craniofacial asymmetry in the pediatric population. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(3):380e–387e.
4.
ChoMJKaneAASeawardJRHallacRR. Metopic ‘ridge’ vs. ‘craniosynostosis": quantifying severity with 3D curvature analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(2):1259–1265.
5.
CohenMMJr. FGFR3-associated coronal synostosis syndrome (Muenke Craniosynostosis). In: CohenMMJrMacleanRE, eds. Craniosynostosis: Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management. Oxford University Press; 2000:313–315.
6.
CrumWRHartkensTHillDL. Non-rigid image registration: theory and practice. Br J Radiol. 2004;77(2):140–153.
7.
DahlbergG. Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. George Allen & Unwin; 1948:122–136.
8.
DarvannTA.Landmarker: a VTK-based tool for landmarking of polygonal surfaces. In: TakadaKKreiborgS, eds. In Silico Dentistry: The Evolution of Computional Oral Health Science. Medigit; 2008: pp.160–162.
9.
DarvannTAÖwallLLarsenPHoveHDKreiborgS. Using CT to validate measurement of facial asymmetry in surface scans of infants with unilateral coronal synostosis. 2015. European Craniofacial Congress; June 24-27, 2015; Gothenburg, Sweden.
DohertyESLacbawanFHadleyDWBrewerCZalewskiCKimHJSolomonBRosenbaumKDomingoDLHartTC, et al.Muenke syndrome (FGFR3-related craniosynostosis): expansion of the phenotype and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A(24):3204–3215.
12.
FarkasLG. Examination. In: FarkasLG, ed. Anthropometry of the Head and Face. Raven Press; 1994: pp.3–57.
13.
FarkasLGCheungG. Facial asymmetry in healthy North American Caucasians. An anthropometrical study. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(2):70–77.
14.
GabrickKSWuRTSinghABartlettSPTaylorJAPersingJAAlperovichM. Assessing facial asymmetry in postoperative patients with unilateral coronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(4):1000–1005.
15.
Gonzalez-Del AngelAEstandia-OrtegaBAlcantara-OrtigozaMAMartinez-CruzVGutierrez-TinajeroDJRasmussenAGomez-GonzalezCS. Expansion of the variable expression of Muenke syndrome: hydrocephalus without craniosynostosis. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(12):3189–3196.
16.
GrippKWMcDonald-McGinnDMGaudenzKWhitakerLABartlettSPGlatPMCassilethLBMayroRZackaiEHMuenkeM. Identification of a genetic cause for isolated unilateral coronal synostosis: a unique mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. J Pediatr. 1998;132(4):714–716.
17.
HonnebierMBCabilingDSHetlingerMMcDonald-McGinnDMZackaiEHBartlettSP. The natural history of patients treated for FGFR3-associated (Muenke-type) craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(3):919–931.
18.
HuttonTJBuxtonBFHammondPPottsHW. Estimating average growth trajectories in shape-space using kernel smoothing. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22(6):747–753.
19.
KaneAALoLJVannierMWMarshJL. Mandibular dysmorphology in unicoronal synostosis and plagiocephaly without synostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(5):418–423.
20.
KellerMKHermannNVDarvannTALarsenPHoveHDChristensenLSchwartzMMarshJLKreiborgS. Craniofacial morphology in Muenke syndrome. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(2):374–386.
21.
KlingenbergCPBarluengaMMeyerA. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution. 2002;56(10):1909–1920.
22.
KreiborgSBjörkA. Craniofacial asymmetry of a dry skull with plagiocephaly. Eur J Orthod. 1981;3(3):195–203.
23.
KreiborgSMøllerEBjörkA. Skeletal and functional craniofacial adaptations in plagiocephaly. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol Suppl. 1985;1:199–210.
24.
KruszkaPAddissieYAYarnellCMHadleyDWGuillen SacotoMJPlattePPaeleckeYCollmannHSnowNSchweitzerT, et al.Muenke syndrome: an international multicenter natural history study. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170A(4):918–929.
25.
LajeunieEEl GhouzziVLe MerrerMMunnichABonaventureJRenierD. Sex related expressivity of the phenotype in coronal craniosynostosis caused by the recurrent P250R FGFR3 mutation. J Med Genet. 1999;36(1):9–13.
26.
LoLJMarshJLPilgramTKVannierMW. Plagiocephaly: differential diagnosis based on endocranial morphology. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97(2):282–291.
27.
LorensenWEClineHE. Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. SIGGRAPH ‘87 Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques; New York, NY; August 1987; pp. 163–169.
28.
MarshJLGadoMHVannierMWStevensWG. Osseous anatomy of unilateral coronal synostosis. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23(2):87–100.
29.
Meyer-MarcottyPStellzig-EisenhauerABareisUHartmannJKochelJ. Three-dimensional perception of facial asymmetry. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(6):647–653.
30.
ModerieCGovshievichAPapayFFearonJGosainADoumitG. Current trends in management of nonsyndromic unilateral coronal craniosynostosis: a cross-sectional survey. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(5):e2229.
31.
MuenkeMGrippKWMcDonald-McGinnDMGaudenzKWhitakerLABartlettSPMarkowitzRIRobinNHNwokoroNMulvihillJJ, et al.A unique point mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene (FGFR3) defines a new craniosynostosis syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60(3):555–564.
32.
ÖwallLDarvannTAHoveHBBøgeskovLKreiborgSHermannNV. Spatially detailed 3D quantification of improved facial symmetry after surgery in children with unicoronal synostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(7):918–928.
33.
ÖwallLDarvannTALarsenPHoveHBHermannNVBøgeskovLKreiborgS. Facial asymmetry in children with unicoronal synostosis who have undergone craniofacial reconstruction in infancy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(4):385–393.
34.
ÖwallLKreiborgSDunøMHermannNVDarvannTAHoveHB. Phenotypic variability in muenke syndrome-observations from five Danish families. Clin Dysmorphol. 2020;29(1):1–9.
35.
Passos-BuenoMRSertiéALJeheeFSFanganielloRYehE. Genetics of craniosynostosis: genes, syndromes, mutations and genotype-phenotype correlations. In: RiceDP, ed. Craniofacial Sutures: Development, Disease and Treatment. Karger; 2008:107–143.
36.
RichtsmeierJTGrauszHMMorrisGRMarshJLVannierMW. Growth of the cranial base in craniosynostosis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(1):55–67.
37.
SchroederWMartinKLorensenB. The Visualization Toolkit: An Object-Oriented Approach to 3D Graphics. Kitware, Inc; 2002.
38.
ThomasGPWilkieAORichardsPGWallSA. FGFR3 P250R mutation increases the risk of reoperation in apparent ‘nonsyndromic’ coronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16(3):347–354.
39.
TulasneJFTessierP. Analysis and late treatment of plagiocephaly. unilateral coronal synostosis. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;15(3):257–263.
40.
VisseHSMeyerURunteCMaasHDirksenD. Assessment of facial and cranial symmetry in infants with deformational plagiocephaly undergoing molding helmet therapy. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(6):548–554.
41.
WarrenSMProctorMRBartlettSPBlountJPBuchmanSRBurnettWFearonJAKeatingRMuraszkoKMRogersGF, et al.Parameters of care for craniosynostosis: craniofacial and neurologic surgery perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(3):731–737.
