4.3 Article

Evaluation of facial hard and soft tissue asymmetry using cone-beam computed tomography

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.038

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The purposes of this study were to (1) evaluate facial asymmetry 3 dimensionally using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and (2) compare the right and left facial hard and soft tissues volumetrically and their interferences on each other. Methods: The CBCT data of 49 asymmetric (soft tissue menton deviation, >= 4 mm; distance from the facial midline) (mean age, 19.9 +/- 5.6 years) and 39 symmetric patients (soft tissue menton deviation, <4 mm) (mean age, 17.8 +/- 5.5 years) were exported to the MIMICS software program (version 13.0; Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Linear, surface distance, angular, volumetric, and surface area measurements were performed 3 dimensionally to assess and compare intragroup and intergroup differences. Results: In the asymmetry group, linear measurements such as ramus height, mandibular effective and corpus length, and absolute mandibular volumetric measurements were significantly decreased (P <0.001), whereas facial mandibular, and soft and hard tissue volumetric measurements made on 3-dimensional images, and linear measurements on 2-dimensional images were increased (P <0.001) on the deviation side. Conclusions: Facial hard and soft tissue asymmetries can be precisely quantified using CBCT. However, especially in the gonial region where the surface topography shows alterations caused by asymmetry, many anatomic landmarks should be chosen for the assessment of asymmetry. At the gonial level, the compensation of the soft tissues for the hard tissues was found on 2-dimensional images; nevertheless, 3-dimensional right and left volumetric soft tissue evaluations provide evidence for asymmetry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available