Prediction of Cranio-Maxilofacial Surgical Planning using an Inverse Soft Tissue Modelling Approach

In cranio-maxillofacial surgery, the determination of a proper surgical plan is an important step to attain a desired aesthetic facial profile and a complete denture closure. In the present paper, we propose an efficient modeling approach to predict the surgical planning on the basis of the desired facial appearance and optimal occlusion. To evaluate the proposed planning approach, the predicted osteotomy plan of six clinical cases that underwent CMF surgery were compared to the real clinical plan. Thereafter, simulated soft-tissue outcomes were compared using the predicted and real clinical plan. This preliminary retrospective comparison of both osteotomy planning and facial outlook shows a good agreement and thereby demonstrates the potential application of the proposed approach in cranio-maxillofacial surgical planning prediction.

Facial esthetics in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate 3 years after alveolar bonegrafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age

OBJECTIVES To evaluate facial esthetics in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) after alveolar bone grafting combined with rhinoplasty between 2 and 4 years of age. DESIGN Retrospective case-control study. SETTING The Department of Pediatric Surgery, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS Photographs of full faces and cropped images of five nasolabial components: nasal deviation, nasal form, nasal profile, vermillion border, and inferior view were assessed by 5 professional and 14 layraters in 29 children (23 boys and 6 girls; mean age = 5.3 years, SD 0.5; Early-grafted group) and 30 children (20 boys and 10 girls; mean age = 5.5 years, SD 1.0; Non-grafted group) with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate repaired with a one-stage closure. The groups differed regarding the timing of alveolar bone grafting: in the Early-grafted group, alveolar bone grafting in combination with rhinoplasty (ABG-R) was performed between 2 and 4 years of age (mean age = 2.3 years; SD 0.6); in the Non-grafted group, the alveolar defect was grafted after 9 years of age. No primary nose correction was carried out in any group. To rate esthetics, a modified five-grade esthetic index of Asher-McDade was used, where grade 1 means the most esthetic and grade 5 - the least esthetic outcome. RESULTS Esthetics of full faces and of all nasolabial elements in the Early-grafted group was significantly better than in Non-grafted group. The scores in the Early-grafted group ranged from 2.30 to 2.66 points, whereas in the Non-grafted group ranged from 2.66 to 3.17 points. All intergroup differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Three years post-operatively, early alveolar bone grafting combined with rhinoplasty is favorable for facial esthetics in children with UCLP, but a longer follow-up is needed to assess whether the improvement was permanent.

Facial attractiveness of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and of controls assessed by laypersons and professionals.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.