Craniofacial Asymmetry in Northern Pakistan
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Right and left side differences in facial symmetry may give rise to misleading clinical and radiological evaluation in cases of potential trauma.
OBJECTIVE: To assess morphometric analysis of local populations is important to facilitate safe surgical approaches in the craniofacial region. To assess common aspects of craniofacial asymmetry in human skulls from Pakistan were investigated.
METHODOLOGY: Human skulls (n=126) from medical schools (n=10) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan were examined. The distances measured, using a digital vernier caliper, were: infraorbital foramen to anterior nasal spine (IOF-ANS); greater palatine foramen to posterior nasal spine (GPF-PNS); zygomatic arch at the zygomatic-temporal suture to foramen spinosum (ZTS-FS); foramen spinosum to basion (FS-B). An asymmetry index was calculated using the formula [(right side - left side)/right side) x 100].9
RESULTS: Means and standard deviations for each distance for the left and right sides were: IOF-ANS, 35.4 ± 2.8 mm and 35.7 ± 2.8 mm; GPF-PNS, 16.9 ± 2.0 mm and 17.1 ± 1.9 mm; ZTS-FS; 40.2 ± 2.8 mm and 40.1 ± 2.9 mm, and FS-B, 35.0 ± 2.4 mm and 35.1 ± 2.4 mm. No difference was found between the sides except for IOF-ANS (p = 0.060, paired sample t-test). [If the level of significance has been set at 0.05, then a value of 0.06 is not significant]. Asymmetry indices were: IOF-ANS, 3.9 ± 3.6; GPF-PNS, 4.6 ± 5.3; ZTS-FS, 3.1 ± 2.7; and FS-B, 3.7 ± 3.0.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the distances between the anatomical landmarks studied on the skull base in a Pakistani population. However, larger population based studies are suggested to examine the difference in left and right side IOF-ANS distance.
KEY WORDS: Skull, Craniofacial asymmetry, Asymmetry index, Anatomical landmarks
References
Kizilkanat E et al. (2011) Importance of Craniofacial Asymmetry in Surgery. Neurosurgery Quarterly. 21(3): 147-9.
Kwon T-G et al. (2006) A comparison of craniofacial morphology in patients with and without facial asymmetry—a three-dimensional analysis with computed tomography. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 35(1): 43-8.
Castriota S.A., Dallapiccola B. (2005) Abnormal Skeletal Phenotypes: From Simple Signs to Complex Diagnoses. 849-50.
Vig P, Hewitt A. (1975) Asymmetry of the human facial skeleton. The Angle Orthodontist. 45(2): 125-9.
Woo T. (1931) On the asymmetry of the human skull. Biometrika. 324-52.
Mulick JF. (1965)An investigation of craniofacial asymmetry using the serial twin-study method. American Journal of Orthodontics. 51(2): 112-29.
TEODORESCU E et al. (2015) Upper airway cavities morphologic features in facial asymmetries. Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology = Revue Roumaine de Morphologie et Embryologie. 56(2): 579.
Kim YH et al. (2003) Asymmetry of the sphenoid bone and its suitability as a reference for analyzing craniofacial asymmetry. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 124(6): 656-62.
Rossi M, Ribeiro E, Smith R. (2003) Craniofacial asymmetry in development: an anatomical study. The Angle Orthodontist. 73(4): 381-5.
Farkas LG, Cheung G. (1981) Facial asymmetry in healthy North American Caucasians: an anthropometrical study. The Angle Oorthodontist. 51(1): 70-7.
de Cráneo AdlB, el Crecimiento D. (2011) Asymmetry of human skull base during growth. International Journal of Morphology. 29(3): 1028-32.
Moreira R et al. (2008) Palatal asymmetry during development: an anatomical study. Clinical Anatomy. 21(5): 398-404.
Methathrathip D et al. (2005) Anatomy of greater palatine foramen and canal and pterygopalatine fossa in Thais: considerations for maxillary nerve block. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 27(6): 511-6.
Chentanez V et al. (1985) Position of greater palatine foramens, length and direction of greater palatine canals: anatomic study of 120 adult human skulls. Chula Medical Journal. 29: 1187-97.
