Nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images

OBJECTIVES To determine the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in subjects with orofacial clefts. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighty-four subjects (mean age 10 years, standard deviation 1.5) with various types of nonsyndromic clefts were included: 11 had unilateral cleft lip (UCL); 30 had unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA); and 43 had unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLAP). A 3D stereophotogrammetric image of the face was taken for each subject. Symmetry and esthetics were evaluated on cropped 3D facial images. The degree of asymmetry of the nasolabial area was calculated based on all 3D data points using a surface registration algorithm. Esthetic ratings of various elements of nasal morphology were performed by eight lay raters on a 100 mm visual analog scale. Statistical analysis included ANOVA tests and regression models. RESULTS Nasolabial asymmetry increased with growing severity of the cleft (p = 0.029). Overall, nasolabial appearance was affected by nasolabial asymmetry; subjects with more nasolabial asymmetry were judged as having a less esthetically pleasing nasolabial area (p < 0.001). However, the relationship between nasolabial symmetry and esthetics was relatively weak in subjects with UCLAP, in whom only vermilion border esthetics was associated with asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS Nasolabial symmetry assessed with 3D facial imaging can be used as an objective measure of treatment outcome in subjects with less severe cleft deformity. In subjects with more severe cleft types, other factors may play a decisive role. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Assessment of nasolabial symmetry is a useful measure of treatment success in less severe cleft types.

Heisenberg symmetry and hypermultiplet manifolds

We study the emergence of Heisenberg (Bianchi II) algebra in hyper-Kähler and quaternionic spaces. This is motivated by the rôle these spaces with this symmetry play in N = 2 hypermultiplet scalar manifolds. We show how to construct related pairs of hyper-Kähler and quaternionic spaces under general symmetry assumptions, the former being a zooming-in limit of the latter at vanishing scalar curvature. We further apply this method for the two hyper-Kähler spaces with Heisenberg algebra, which is reduced to U (1) × U (1) at the quaternionic level. We also show that no quaternionic spaces exist with a strict Heisenberg symmetry – as opposed to Heisenberg U (1). We finally discuss the realization of the latter by gauging appropriate Sp(2, 4) generators in N = 2 conformal supergravity.

The Effects of Density, Spatial Pattern, and Competitive Symmetry on Size Variation in Simulated Plant Populations

Patterns of size inequality in crowded plant populations are often taken to be indicative of the degree of size asymmetry of competition, but recent research suggests that some of the patterns attributed to size‐asymmetric competition could be due to spatial structure. To investigate the theoretical relationships between plant density, spatial pattern, and competitive size asymmetry in determining size variation in crowded plant populations, we developed a spatially explicit, individual‐based plant competition model based on overlapping zones of influence. The zone of influence of each plant is modeled as a circle, growing in two dimensions, and is allometrically related to plant biomass. The area of the circle represents resources potentially available to the plant, and plants compete for resources in areas in which they overlap. The size asymmetry of competition is reflected in the rules for dividing up the overlapping areas. Theoretical plant populations were grown in random and in perfectly uniform spatial patterns at four densities under size‐asymmetric and size‐symmetric competition. Both spatial pattern and size asymmetry contributed to size variation, but their relative importance varied greatly over density and over time. Early in stand development, spatial pattern was more important than the symmetry of competition in determining the degree of size variation within the population, but after plants grew and competition intensified, the size asymmetry of competition became a much more important source of size variation. Size variability was slightly higher at higher densities when competition was symmetric and plants were distributed nonuniformly in space. In a uniform spatial pattern, size variation increased with density only when competition was size asymmetric. Our results suggest that when competition is size asymmetric and intense, it will be more important in generating size variation than is local variation in density. Our results and the available data are consistent with the hypothesis that high levels of size inequality commonly observed within crowded plant populations are largely due to size‐asymmetric competition, not to variation in local density.