Three-Dimensional Morphologic Nasal Surface Characteristics that Predict the Extremes of Esthetics in Patients with Repaired Cleft Lip and Palate

Abstract

Objective

The purposes of this study were (1) to develop imaging methods and objective numeric parameters to describe nose morphology, and (2) to correlate those parameters with nasal esthetics for patients with clefts.

Methods

A total of 28 patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) and 20 age- and gender-matched individuals without clefts were identified. A panel of orthodontists rated and ranked nasal esthetics from nose casts for the cleft group. Best and worst esthetic cleft groups were established from the cast assessments. Three-dimensional surface coordinates of the casts were digitally mapped with an electromagnetic tracking device. Digitized nasal images were oriented, voxelated, sliced, and mathematically curve-fitted. Maximum difference, percent area difference, and maximum and minimum derivative differences between cleft and noncleft and between right and left nose sides were calculated. Differences in parameters between groups were assessed with the use of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests, and correlations with esthetics were assessed with the Spearman rank correlation test.

Results

Differences were seen between cleft and noncleft and best and worst esthetic groups for all four parameters (p < .05). The best esthetic cleft group had (1) lower percent area difference (p < .0001), (2) lower maximum difference (p < .001), and (3) smaller differences in slope of the nose in the coronal plane (p < .0001) than the worst esthetic cleft group.

Conclusions

Maximum difference and maximum derivative difference and, to a lesser degree, percent area difference can be used to identify differences between cleft and noncleft nasal morphology and to assess levels of nasal esthetics for patients with CUCLP.

Keywords

cleft lip and palate curve-fitting digitization electromagnetic tracking device esthetics imaging morphology nasal nose shape parameters surface three-dimensional

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Omari

, Millett

D.T.

, Ayoub

, Bock

, Ray

, Dunaway

, Crampin

An appraisal of three methods of rating facial deformity in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003; 40: 530–537.

Anastassov

G.E.

, Joos

, Zollner

Evaluation of the results of delayed rhinoplasty in cleft lip and palate patients: functional and aesthetic implications and factors that affect successful nasal repair. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998; 36: 416–424.

Asher-McDade

, Brattstrom

, Dahl

, McWilliam

, Moisted

, Plint

D.A.

, Prahl-Andersen

, Semb

, Shaw

W.C.

, The

R.P.

A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 409–412.

Asher-McDade

, Roberts

, Shaw

W.C.

, Gallager

Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991; 28: 385–391.

Coghlan

B.A.

, Matthews

, Pigott

R.W.

A computer-based method of measuring facial asymmetry: results from an assessment of the repair of cleft lip deformities. Br J Plast Surg. 1987; 40: 371–376.

Cox

N.H.

, van der Linden

F.P.

Facial harmony. Am J Orthod. 1971; 60: 175–183.

Cussons

P.D.

, Murison

M.S.

, Fernandez

A.E.

, Pigott

R.W.

A panel based assessment of early versus no nasal correction of the cleft lip nose. Br J Plast Surg. 1993; 46: 7–12.

Duffy

, Noar

J.H.

, Evans

R.D.

, Sanders

Three-dimensional analysis of the child cleft face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 137–144.

Farkas

L.G.

Anthropometry of the Head and Face. 2nd edition. New York: Raven Press; 1994.

10.

Farkas

L.G.

, Cheung

G.C.

Nostril asymmetry: microform of cleft lip palate? An anthropometrical study of healthy North American Caucasians. Cleft Palate J. 1979; 16: 351–357.

11.

Ferrario

V.F.

, Sforza

, Dellavia

, Tartaglia

G.M.

, Sozzi

, Caru

A quantitative three-dimensional assessment of abnormal variations in facial soft tissues of adult patients with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003; 40: 544–549.

12.

Ferrario

V.F.

, Sforza

, Poggio

C.E.

, Cova

, Tartaglia

Preliminary evaluation of an electromagnetic three-dimensional digitizer in facial anthropometry. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998; 35: 9–15.

13.

Friede

, Lilja

, Johanson

Lip-nose morphology and symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients following a two-stage lip closure. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980; 14: 55–64.

14.

Gibbons

J.D.

, Sobel

Selecting and Ordering Populations: A New Statistical Methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977.

15.

Grayson

B.H.

, Maull

Nasoalveolar molding for infants born with clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2004; 31: 149–158.

16.

Grayson

B.H.

, Santiago

P.E.

, Brecht

L.E.

, Cutting

C.B.

Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999; 36: 486–498.

17.

Howells

D.J.

, Shaw

W.C.

The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 402–408.

18.

Hurwitz

D.J.

, Ashby

E.R.

, Llull

, Pasqual

, Tabor

, Garrison

, Gillen

, Weyant

Computer-assisted anthropometry for outcome assessment of cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 103: 1608–1623.

19.

Johnson

, Sandy

An aesthetic index for evaluation of cleft repair. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25: 243–249.

20.

Kane

A.A.

, Pilgram

T.K.

, Moshiri

, Marsh

J.L.

Long-term outcome of cleft lip nasal reconstruction in childhood. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 105: 1600–1608.

21.

Kau

C.H.

, Zhurov

, Scheer

, Bouwman

, Richmond

The feasibility of measuring three-dimensional facial morphology in children. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2004; 7: 198–204.

22.

Laitung

J.K.

, Coghlan

B.A.

, Pigott

R.W.

A comparison of computer versus panel assessment of two groups of patients with cleft lip and palate. Br J Plast Surg. 1993; 46: 18–21.

23.

Lindsay

W.K.

, Farkas

L.G.

The use of anthropometry in assessing the cleft-lip nose. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972; 49: 286–293.

24.

K.H.

Harmonic analysis of the human face. Biometrics. 1965; 21: 491–505.

25.

Mestak

, Smahel

Basic factors influencing the postnatal development of the nose in facial clefts. Acta Chir Plast. 1985; 27: 193–201.

26.

Millard

Jr. . Earlier correction of the unilateral cleft lip nose. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982; 70: 64–73.

27.

Milne

A.D.

, Lee

J.M.

Error analysis of a direct current electromagnetic tracking system in digitizing 3-dimensional surface geometries. Biomed Sci Instrum. 1999; 35: 23–28.

28.

Nkenke

, Benz

, Maier

, Wiltfang

, Holbach

L.M.

, Kramer

, Hausler

, Neukam

F.W.

Relative en- and exophthalmometry in zygomatic fractures comparing optical non-contact, non-ionizing 3D imaging to the Hertel instrument and computed tomography. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003; 31: 362–368.

29.

Nkenke

, Lehner

, Kramer

, Haeusler

, Benz

, Schuster

, Neukam

F.W.

, Vairaktaris

E.G.

, Wurm

Determination of facial symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients from three-dimensional data: technical report and assessment of measurement errors. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006; 43: 129–137.

30.

O'Grady

K.F.

, Antonyshyn

O.M.

Facial asymmetry: three-dimensional analysis using laser surface scanning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 104: 928–937.

31.

Peck

, Peck

A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970; 40: 284–318.

32.

Peck

, Peck

, Kataja

Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod. 1991; 61: 43–48.

33.

Peerlings

R.H.

, Kuijpers-Jagtman

A.M.

, Hoeksma

J.B.

A photographic scale to measure facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod. 1995; 17: 101–109.

34.

Prahl

, Prahl-Andersen

, van't Hof

M.A.

, Kuijpers-Jagtman

A.M.

Infant orthopedics and facial appearance: a randomized clinical trial (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006; 43: 659–664.

35.

Ras

, Habets

L.L.

, van Ginkel

F.C.

, Prahl-Andersen

Method for quantifying facial asymmetry in three dimensions using stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 1995; 65: 233–239.

36.

Roberts-Harry

D.P.

, Evans

, Hathorn

I.S.

Effects of different surgical regimes on nasal asymmetry and facial attractiveness in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991; 28: 274–278.

37.

Roberts-Harry

D.P.

, Hathorn

I.S.

, Stephens

C.D.

The ranking of facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14: 483–488.

38.

Ross

R.B.

Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987; 24: 5–77.

39.

Ross

R.B.

, MacNamera

M.C.

Effect of presurgical infant orthopedics on facial esthetics in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994; 31: 68–73.

40.

Russell

K.A.

A Three-Dimensional Assessment Protocol to Evaluate Nose Morphology in Individuals With Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto; 1994. Dissertation.

41.

Russell

K.A.

, Tompson

Correlation between facial morphology and esthetics in patients with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009; 46: 319–325.

42.

Russell

K.A.

, Waldman

S.D.

, Lee

J.M.

Video-imaging assessment of nasal morphology in individuals with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 542–550.

43.

Russell

K.A.

, Waldman

S.D.

, Tompson

, Lee

J.M.

Nasal morphology and shape parameters as predictors of nasal esthetics in individuals with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001; 38: 476–485.

44.

Shaw

W.C.

The influence of children's dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod. 1981; 79: 399–415.

45.

Spalding

P.M.

, Vig

P.S.

External nasal morphology and respiratory function. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 97: 207–212.

46.

Tobiasen

J.M.

Scaling facial impairment. Cleft Palate J. 1989; 26: 249–254.

47.

Tobiasen

J.M.

, Hiebert

J.M.

, Boraz

R.A.

Development of scales of severity of facial cleft impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991; 28: 419–424.

48.

Vegter

, Hage

J.J.

Facial anthropometry in cleft patients: a historical appraisal. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001; 38: 577–581.

49.

Ward

C.M.

An analysis, from photographs, of the results of four approaches to elongating the columella after repair of bilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979; 64: 68–75.

50.

Williams

A.C.

, Bearn

, Mildinhall

, Murphy

, Sell

, Shaw

W.C.

, Murray

J.J.

, Sandy

J.R.

Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 2: Dentofacial outcomes and patient satisfaction. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001; 38: 24–29.

51.

Yamada

, Mori

, Minami

, Mishima

, Sugahara

, Sakuda

Computer aided three-dimensional analysis of nostril forms: application in normal and operated cleft lip patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1999; 27: 345–353.