Abstract
Objective
To classify facial asymmetry (FA) phenotypes in adult patients with skeletal Class III (C-III) malocclusion.
Methods
A total of 120 C-III patients who underwent orthognathic surgery (OGS) and whose three-dimensional computed tomography images were taken one month prior to OGS were evaluated. Thirty hard tissue landmarks were identified. After measurement of 22 variables, including cant (°, mm), shift (mm), and yaw (°) of the maxilla, maxillary dentition (Max-dent), mandibular dentition, mandible, and mandibular border (Man-border) and differences in the frontal ramus angle (FRA, °) and ramus height (RH, mm), K-means cluster analysis was conducted using three variables (cant in the Max-dent [mm] and shift [mm] and yaw [°] in the Man-border). Statistical analyses were conducted to characterize the differences in the FA variables among the clusters.
Results
The FA phenotypes were classified into five types 1) non-asymmetry type (35.8%); 2) maxillary-cant type (14.2%; severe cant of the Max-dent, mild shift of the Man-border); 3) mandibular-shift and yaw type (16.7%; moderate shift and yaw of the Man-border, mild RH-difference); 4) complex type (9.2%; severe cant of the Max-dent, moderate cant, severe shift, and severe yaw of the Man-border, moderate differences in FRA and RH); and 5) maxillary reverse-cant type (24.2%; reverse-cant of the Max-dent). Strategic decompensation by pre-surgical orthodontic treatment and considerations for OGS planning were proposed according to the FA phenotypes.
Conclusions
This FA phenotype classification may be an effective tool for differential diagnosis and surgical planning for Class III patients with FA.
Keywords: Facial asymmetry, Class III malocclusion, Cluster analysis
INTRODUCTION
The etiology of facial asymmetry (FA) includes genetic or congenital malformations, acquired or developmental deformities, environmental factors including habits or trauma, and functional deviations.1 Piao et al.2 reported that the prevalence of FA in Korean orthodontic patients was the highest in skeletal Class III malocclusion, followed by skeletal Class I and Class II malocclusions (16.6%, 10.1%, 6.9%, p < 0.001), despite data from a single dental hospital.
FA has been diagnosed using facial photographs, posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms, or submentovertex projections. Although facial photographs can provide an intuitive impression of FA, it is difficult to accurately measure the amount of asymmetry. PA cephalograms and/or submentovertex projections are useful for diagnosis and orthognathic surgical planning of oral and maxillofacial deformities. However, these modalities have limitations due to magnification, projection errors, and two-dimensional (2D) assessments of the three-dimensional (3D) structures.3 Therefore, the use of 3D computed tomography (3D-CT) or cone-beam CT has become popular for the accurate measurement of craniofacial anatomic structures.4-8
The major limitations in previous studies on FA can be summarized as follows: 1) Most studies investigated subjects with skeletal Class I, II, and III malocclusion, causing a problem in sample purity;9-12 2) PA cephalograms or facial photographs have inevitable errors in the 2D analysis of a 3D object;9,11 3) Although some previous study used 3D-CT analysis, the number of FA patients was insufficient to draw a robust statistical significance;10 4) Some previous studies did not provide statistical evidence for the classification of FA;13-15 5) Although FA was classified in a 3D manner, most previous studies have focused only on cant and shift. Furthermore, they did not pay attention to the yaw as well as the differences in the frontal ramus angle (FRA) and ramus height (RH);9-13,15,16 6) It is important to analyze the asymmetry in the maxilla, maxillary dentition, mandibular dentition, mandible, and mandibular border separately; and 7) Some previous studies failed to consider the clinical significance in relation to pre-operative orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery.12,16
For clinically significant and statistically valid classification of FA, it is important to conduct studies using 3D-CT images with a large number of patients and full consideration of cant, shift, and yaw. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to classify and characterize the FA phenotypes in Korean adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion who had undergone orthognathic surgery using 3D-CT and cluster analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The initial samples were Korean adult patients who had undergone pre-operative orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery at Seoul National University Dental Hospital (SNUDH) in Seoul, Republic of Korea between 2015 and 2020. The inclusion criteria were 1) patients with completed facial growth (over the age of 18 years); 2) patients who were diagnosed with skeletal Class III malocclusion; and 3) patients whose 3D-CT images were taken at least one month prior to orthognathic surgery. The 3D-CTs taken before orthognathic surgery were used to analyze the skeletal problems and set up precise surgical planning and to minimize cost and radiation exposure issues from sequential 3D-CT taken from the initial visit to the post-operative stage. The exclusion criteria were 1) patients whose posterior teeth were missing or abnormally shaped; 2) patients who had a degenerative joint disease, tumor, or trauma history in the temporomandibular joints; and 3) patients who had hemifacial microsomia or other craniofacial anomaly syndromes.
As a result, 120 Korean adult patients who had undergone pre-operative orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion were recruited as the final sample (72 males and 48 females; mean age at the time of 3D-CT taking, 22.9 ± 4.4 years). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee of SNUDH (ERI20029).
3D-CTs (Sensation 10; Siemens, München, Germany; axial slice thickness, 1.0 mm) were taken with centric relation and lips in repose. After each data set was imported into the ON3D program (3DONS, INC., Seoul, Korea), 3D-CT images were re-orientated using the horizontal, coronal, and mid-sagittal planes (Figures 1 and 2, Table 1). The definitions of landmarks and reference planes used in the present study were adopted from the methodology of Hong et al.17 The N point was registered as the origin (0, 0, 0) of the Cartesian coordinate system.
Figure 1.
The landmarks used in this study. A, Nasion (N), frontozygomatic point, (FZP, R and L), porion (Po, R and L), orbitale (Or, R and L), mesiobuccal (MB) cusp tip of the mandibular first molar (L6CP, R and L), lower dental midline point (L1MP), inferior gonion (Inf-Go, R and L), and menton (Me). B, A point (A), jugal process point (J, R and L), mandibular foramen (MdF, R and L), MB cusp tip of the maxillary first molar (U6CP, R and L), B point (B), and upper dental midline point (U1MP). C and D, Condylion (Cd-S, R and L), lateral pole of condyle (Cd-L, R and L), medial pole of condyle (Cd-M, R and L), and condylar center (Cd-C, R and L).
R, right; L, left.
Figure 2.
The planes and lines used in this study. A, Horizontal plane, coronal plane, mid-sagittal (MidS) plane, frontozygomatic point (FZP) line, right Frankfort horizontal (RFH) line, and ramal line (R and L). B, Condylar sagittal plane (R and L) and condylar axis line (R and L). C, Condylar coronal plane (R and L).
R, right; L, left.
See Figure 1 for definitions of the other landmarks.
Table 1.
Definition of the landmarks, lines, and planes used in this study
| Landmarks, lines and planes | Abbreviation | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Cranial landmarks | ||
| Nasion | N | The middle point of nasofrontal suture |
| Right frontozygomatic suture | RFZP | The intersection of the right frontozygomatic suture and the inner rim of the orbit |
| Left frontozygomatic suture | LFZP | The intersection of the left frontozygomatic suture and the inner rim of the orbit |
| Right porion | RPo | The most superior point of the right external auditory meatus |
| Left porion | LPo | The most superior point of the left external auditory meatus |
| Maxillary skeletal landmarks | ||
| Right orbitale | ROr | The most inferior point of the right orbital contour |
| Left orbitale | LOr | The most inferior point of the left orbital contour |
| Right jugal process point | RJ | The intersection point between the lateral contour of the alveolar process and the lower contour of the zygomatic buttress of the right maxilla |
| Left jugal process point | LJ | The intersection point of the lateral contour of the alveolar process and the lower contour of the zygomatic buttress of the left maxilla |
| A point | A | The deepest point between the anterior nasal spine and the upper incisal alveolus in the mid-sagittal plane |
| Maxillary dental landmarks | ||
| Maxillary central incisor | U1MP | Upper dental midline point |
| Cusp of the maxillary right first molar | RU6CP | The tip of the mesiobuccal cusp of the maxillary right first molar crown |
| Cusp of the maxillary left first molar | LU6CP | The tip of the mesiobuccal cusp of the maxillary left first molar crown |
| Mandibular skeletal landmarks | ||
| Right mandibular foramen | RMdF | The most Inferior point of the right mandibular foramen |
| Left mandibular foramen | LMdF | The most inferior point of the left mandibular foramen |
| B point | B | The deepest point between pogonion and the lower incisal alveolus in the mid-sagittal plane |
| Menton | Me | The most inferior point in the middle of the mandibular chin in the coronal plane |
| Right condylion | RCd-S | The most superior point of the right condyle in the condylar sagittal plane within the range of glenoid fossa |
| Left condylion | LCd-S | The most superior point of the left condyle in the condylar sagittal plane within the range of glenoid fossa |
| Lateral pole of the right condyle | RCd-L | The most lateral point of the right condylar head |
| Lateral pole of the left condyle | LCd-L | The most lateral point of the left condylar head |
| Medial pole of the right condyle | RCd-M | The most medial point of the right condylar head |
| Medial pole of the left condyle | LCd-M | The most medial point of the left condylar head |
| Right condylar center | RCd-C | A mid-point between the RCd-L and RCd-M |
| Leftt condylar center | LCd-C | A mid-point between the LCd-L and LCd-M |
| Right inferior gonion | RInf-Go | The most inferior point of the inferior border of the lower half of the right ramus |
| Left inferior gonion | LInf-Go | The most inferior point of the inferior border of the lower half of the left ramus |
| Mandibular dental landmarks | ||
| Mandibular central incisor | L1MP | Lower dental midline point |
| Cusp of mandibular right first molar | RL6CP | The mesiobuccal cusp tip of the mandibular right first molar |
| Cusp of mandibular left first molar | LL6CP | The mesiobuccal cusp tip of the mandibular left first molar |
| Lines | ||
| Frontozygomatic point line | FZP line | A line passing through the RFZP and LFZP |
| Right Frankfort horizontal line | RFH line | A line passing through the RPo and ROr |
| Right ramal line | RRamal line | A line passing through the RInf Go and RCd-S |
| Left ramal line | LRamal line | A line passing through the LInf Go and LCd-S |
| Right condylar axis line | RCondylar axis line | A line passing through the RCd-L and RCd-M |
| Left condylar axis line | LCondylar axis line | A line passing through the LCd-L and LCd-M |
| Planes | ||
| Horizontal plane | Horizontal plane | A plane parallel to both the RFH line and the FZP line passing N |
| Coronal plane | Coronal plane | A plane perpendicular to both the horizontal plane and the FZP line passing through N |
| Mid-sagittal plane | MidS plane | A plane perpendicular to both the horizontal plane and the coronal plane passing through N |
| Right condylar coronal plane | RCondylar coronal plane | A plane including the RCondylar axis line and perpendicular to the horizontal plane |
| Left condylar coronal plane | LCondylar coronal plane | A plane including the LCondylar axis line and perpendicular to the horizontal plane |
| Right condylar sagittal plane | RCondylar sagittal plane | A plane including the RCd-C point and perpendicular to the horizontal plane and the RCondylar coronal plane |
| Left condylar sagittal plane | LCondylar sagittal plane | A plane including the LCd-C point and perpendicular to the horizontal plane and the LCondylar coronal plane |
Adapted from the article of Hong et al. (Korean J Orthod 2020;50:293-303).17
The definitions of 30 hard tissue landmarks, six lines, and seven planes are enumerated in Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1. These landmarks were identified on each 3D-CT image by a single operator (SWH) with ON3D software.
The definitions of 22 measurement variables are enumerated in Figure 3 and Table 2. In the present study, a novel 3D measurement method was developed to express the cant, shift, and yaw of the maxilla, maxillary dentition, mandibular dentition, mandible, and mandibular border. When asymmetry occurred in the same direction of the Me deviation, the sign of the measurement variables was designated as positive (+); otherwise, the sign was designated as negative (–).
Figure 3.
The variables used in this study. Maxillary skeletal (MxS)-Cant (°), MxS-Cant (mm), MxS-Shift (mm), MxS-Yaw (°), maxillary dental (MxD)-Cant (°), MxD-Cant (mm), MxD-Shift (mm), MxD-Yaw (°), mandibular dental (MdD)-Cant (°), MdD-Cant (mm), MdD-Shift (mm), MdD-Yaw (°), mandibular skeletal (MdS)-Cant (°), MdS-Cant (mm), MdS-Shift (mm), MdS-Yaw (°), mandibular border (MdB)-Cant (°), MdB-Cant (mm), MdB-Shift (mm), MdB-Yaw (°), frontal ramus angle (FRA, °) (R and L, difference), Ramus height (RH, mm) (R and L, difference).
MidS, mid-sagittal; R, right; L, left.
See Figure 1 for definitions of the other landmarks.
Table 2.
Definition of the variables used in this study
| Variable | Abbreviation | Definition | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cant | Angulation | Maxillary skeletal Cant (°) | MxS-Cant (°) | The angle formed between the RJ–LJ line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane |
| Maxillary dental Cant (°) | MxD-Cant (°) | The angle formed between the RU6CP–LU6CP line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane | ||
| Mandibular dental Cant (°) | MdD-Cant (°) | The angle formed between the RL6CP–LL6CP line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane | ||
| Mandibular skeletal Cant (°) | MdS-Cant (°) | The angle formed between the RMdF–LMdF line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane | ||
| Mandibular border Cant (°) | MdB-Cant (°) | The angle formed between the RInf-Go–LInf-Go line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane | ||
| Distance | Maxillary skeletal Cant (mm) | MxS-Cant (mm) | The difference in the coordinates on the z-axis of RJ and LJ | |
| Maxillary dental Cant (mm) | MxD-Cant (mm) | The difference in the coordinates on the z-axis of RU6CP and LU6CP | ||
| Mandibular dental Cant (mm) | MdD-Cant (mm) | The difference in the coordinates on the z-axis of RL6CP and LL6CP | ||
| Mandibular skeletal Cant (mm) | MdS-Cant (mm) | The difference in the coordinates on the z-axis of RMdF and LMdF | ||
| Mandibular border Cant (mm) | MdB-Cant (mm) | The difference in the coordinates on the z-axis of RInf-Go and LInf-Go | ||
| Shift | Maxillary skeletal Shift (mm) | MxS-Shift (mm) | The x-axis coordinate of A point | |
| Maxillary dental Shift (mm) | MxD-Shift (mm) | The x-axis coordinate of U1MP | ||
| Mandibular dental Shift (mm) | MdD-Shift (mm) | The x-axis coordinate of L1MP | ||
| Mandibular skeletal Shift (mm) | MdS-Shift (mm) | The x-axis coordinate of B point | ||
| Mandibular border Shift (mm) | MdB-Shift (mm) | The x-axis coordinate of Me | ||
| Yaw | Maxillary skeletal Yaw (°) | MxS-Yaw (°) | The angle between the bisector of the RJ–A–LJ angle and the MidS plane projected to the Horizontal plane | |
| Maxillary dental Yaw (°) | MxD-Yaw (°) | The angle between the bisector of the RU6CP–U1MP–LU6CP angle and the MidS plane projected to the Horizontal plane | ||
| Mandibular dental Yaw (°) | MdD-Yaw (°) | The angle between the bisector of the RL6CP–L1MP–LL6CP angle and the MidS plane projected to the Horizontal plane | ||
| Mandibular skeletal Yaw (°) | MdS-Yaw (°) | The angle between the bisector of the RMdF–B–LMdF angle and the MidS plane projected to the Horizontal plane | ||
| Mandibular border Yaw (°) | MdB-Yaw (°) | The angle between the bisector of the RInf-Go–Me–LInf-Go angle and the MidS plane projected to the Horizontal plane | ||
| Ramus | Frontal ramus angle difference between the right and left sides (°) | FRA-difference (°) | The difference between the RFRA (the angle formed between RRamal line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane) and the LFRA (the angle formed between the LRamal line and the FZP line projected to the Coronal plane) | |
| Ramus height difference between the right and left sides (mm) | RH-difference (mm) | The difference between the RRH (the linear distance from RInf-Go to RCd-S) and the LRH (the linear distance from LInf-Go to LCd-S) | ||
See Table 1 for definitions of each landmark, line, and plane.
Twelve randomly selected CT images were re-digitized and re-measured after two weeks by the same operator (SWH). Since there was no significant difference in the values of the measurement variables between the first and second measurements in the Wilcoxon signed rank test (p > 0.05), the first set of measurements was used for further analysis.
K-means cluster analysis was conducted to classify the FA phenotypes using the three representative variables (cant in the maxillary dentition [molar height difference, mm] and shift [Me deviation, mm] and yaw [°] in the mandibular border), which provide significant clinical information for diagnosis and surgical planning. The reasons were as follows: 1) The cant of the maxillary dentition was used in clustering because it is one of the main targets of orthognathic surgery; and 2) Since the degree of asymmetry worsens from top to bottom, the shift and yaw of the mandibular border were used for clustering. In addition, although we measured both the angle and distance of the cant in the maxillary dentition, only the cant distance (molar height difference) was utilized for clustering to prevent overfitting and to provide clinical information for easy application in surgical planning.
According to the total within-cluster sum of squares, the appropriate number of clusters was 4 to 6. After analyzing the results of clustering by the number of clusters with a 3D scatter plot, the final number of clusters was determined to be five.
Among the five clusters, the cluster with the least amounts of shift, cant, and yaw was designated as the non-asymmetry type (Table 3). The degree of asymmetry in each measurement variable was classified into normal, mild, moderate, and severe based on the means and standard deviations (SD) of the non-asymmetry type (Table 3). The cut-points were 1 SD to 2 SD or –1 SD to –2 SD for mild degree, 2 SD to 3 SD or –2 SD to –3 SD for moderate degree, and > 3 SD or < –3 SD for severe degree. The one-way analysis of variance test and multiple comparisons with Tukey’s honestly significant difference test were conducted to characterize the differences in the FA variables among the five clusters.
Table 3.
Severity of the measurement variables
| Variable | Severe (< −3 SD) |
Moderate (≥ −3 SD and < −2 SD) |
Mild (≥ −2 SD and < −1 SD) |
Normal (≥ −1 SD and ≤ 1 SD) |
Mild (> 1 SD and ≤ 2 SD) |
Moderate (> 2 SD and ≤ 3 SD) |
Severe (> 3 SD) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cant | MxS-Cant (°) | < −3.30 | ≥ −3.30 and < −2.06 | ≥ −2.06 and < −0.82 | ≥ −0.82 and ≤ 1.65 | > 1.65 and ≤ 2.89 | > 2.89 and ≤ 4.13 | > 4.13 |
| MxD-Cant (°) | < −0.69 | ≥ −0.69 and < −0.18 | ≥ −0.18 and < 0.32 | ≥ 0.32 and ≤ 1.33 | > 1.33 and ≤ 1.84 | > 1.84 and ≤ 2.34 | > 2.34 | |
| MdD-Cant (°) | < −2.07 | ≥ −2.07 and < −1.11 | ≥ −1.11 and < −0.16 | ≥ −0.16 and ≤ 1.75 | > 1.75 and ≤ 2.71 | > 2.71 and ≤ 3.67 | > 3.67 | |
| MdS-Cant (°) | < −2.72 | ≥ −2.72 and < −1.61 | ≥ −1.61 and < −0.50 | ≥ −0.50 and ≤ 1.72 | > 1.72 and ≤ 2.82 | > 2.82 and ≤ 3.93 | > 3.93 | |
| MdB-Cant (°) | < −3.92 | ≥ −3.92 and < −2.44 | ≥ −2.44 and < −0.96 | ≥ −0.96 and ≤ 2.00 | > 2.00 and ≤ 3.48 | > 3.48 and ≤ 4.96 | > 4.96 | |
| MxS-Cant (mm) | < −3.50 | ≥ −3.50 and < −2.18 | ≥ −2.18 and < −0.87 | ≥ −0.87 and ≤ 1.76 | > 1.76 and ≤ 3.08 | > 3.08 and ≤ 4.40 | > 4.40 | |
| MxD-Cant (mm) | < −0.60 | ≥ −0.60 and < −0.15 | ≥ −0.15 and < 0.30 | ≥ 0.30 and ≤ 1.20 | > 1.20 and ≤ 1.65 | > 1.65 and ≤ 2.10 | > 2.10 | |
| MdD-Cant (mm) | < −1.72 | ≥ −1.72 and < −0.92 | ≥ −0.92 and < −0.13 | ≥ −0.13 and ≤ 1.46 | > 1.46 and ≤ 2.26 | > 2.26 and ≤ 3.05 | > 3.05 | |
| MdS-Cant (mm) | < −4.03 | ≥ −4.03 and < −2.39 | ≥ −2.39 and < −0.74 | ≥ −0.74 and ≤ 2.54 | > 2.54 and ≤ 4.19 | > 4.19 and ≤ 5.83 | > 5.83 | |
| MdB-Cant (mm) | < −6.36 | ≥ −6.36 and < −3.96 | ≥ −3.96 and < −1.55 | ≥ −1.55 and ≤ 3.25 | > 3.25 and ≤ 5.65 | > 5.65 and ≤ 8.05 | > 8.05 | |
| Shift | MxS-Shift (mm) | < −3.14 | ≥ −3.14 and < −2.01 | ≥ −2.01 and < −0.87 | ≥ −0.87 and ≤ 1.39 | > 1.39 and ≤ 2.52 | > 2.52 and ≤ 3.66 | > 3.66 |
| MxD-Shift (mm) | < −4.07 | ≥ −4.07 and < −2.56 | ≥ −2.56 and < −1.05 | ≥ −1.05 and ≤ 1.96 | > 1.96 and ≤ 3.46 | > 3.46 and ≤ 4.97 | > 4.97 | |
| MdD-Shift (mm) | < −3.01 | ≥ −3.01 and < −1.50 | ≥ −1.50 and < 0.02 | ≥ 0.02 and ≤ 3.06 | > 3.06 and ≤ 4.58 | > 4.58 and ≤ 6.10 | > 6.10 | |
| MdS-Shift (mm) | < −3.08 | ≥ −3.08 and < −1.53 | ≥ −1.53 and < 0.03 | ≥ 0.03 and ≤ 3.13 | > 3.13 and ≤ 4.69 | > 4.69 and ≤ 6.24 | > 6.24 | |
| MdB-Shift (mm) | < −2.21 | ≥ −2.21 and < −0.74 | ≥ −0.74 and < 0.73 | ≥ 0.73 and ≤ 3.67 | > 3.67 and ≤ 5.14 | > 5.14 and ≤ 6.61 | > 6.61 | |
| Yaw | MxS-Yaw (°) | < −4.84 | ≥ −4.84 and < −3.27 | ≥ −3.27 and < −1.71 | ≥ −1.71 and ≤ 1.43 | > 1.43 and ≤ 3.00 | > 3.00 and ≤ 4.56 | > 4.56 |
| MxD-Yaw (°) | < −6.16 | ≥ −6.16 and < −4.29 | ≥ −4.29 and < −2.42 | ≥ −2.42 and ≤ 1.32 | > 1.32 and ≤ 3.19 | > 3.19 and ≤ 5.06 | > 5.06 | |
| MdD-Yaw (°) | < −5.39 | ≥ −5.39 and < −3.46 | ≥ −3.46 and < −1.52 | ≥ −1.52 and ≤ 2.34 | > 2.34 and ≤ 4.27 | > 4.27 and ≤ 6.21 | > 6.21 | |
| MdS-Yaw (°) | < −4.17 | ≥ −4.17 and < −2.66 | ≥ −2.66 and < −1.15 | ≥ −1.15 and ≤ 1.87 | > 1.87 and ≤ 3.39 | > 3.39 and ≤ 4.90 | > 4.90 | |
| MdB-Yaw (°) | < −3.76 | ≥ −3.76 and < −2.33 | ≥ −2.33 and < −0.90 | ≥ −0.90 and ≤ 1.97 | > 1.97 and ≤ 3.40 | > 3.40 and ≤ 4.83 | > 4.83 | |
| Ramus | FRA-difference (°) | < −5.65 | ≥ −5.65 and < −3.21 | ≥ −3.21 and < −0.77 | ≥ −0.77 and ≤ 4.10 | > 4.10 and ≤ 6.53 | > 6.53 and ≤ 8.97 | > 8.97 |
| RH-difference (mm) | < −7.25 | ≥ −7.25 and < −4.62 | ≥ −4.62 and < −1.98 | ≥ −1.98 and ≤ 3.29 | > 3.29 and ≤ 5.92 | > 5.92 and ≤ 8.56 | > 8.56 | |
The mean and standard deviation (SD) from the non-asymmetry group were used for deciding the severity of each variable.
See Table 2 for definitions of each measurement variable.
All statistical analyses were conducted using Language R, version 3.6.3 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Morphological characteristics of five FA phenotypes (Table 4, Figure 4)
Table 4.
Comparison of measurement variables among the facial asymmetry types
| Parameter | Non-asymmetry type (n = 43, 35.8%, 1) |
Max-Cant type (n = 17, 14.2%, 2) |
Man-Shift-Yaw type (n = 20, 16.7%, 3) |
Complex type (n = 11, 9.2%, 4) |
Max-Rev-Cant type (n = 29, 24.2%, 5) | p-value | Multiple comparison | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||||||||
| Cant | Angulation | MxS-Cant (°) | 0.41 | 1.24 | 1.15 | 1.11 | 1.04 | 2.24 | 2.05† | 1.54 | −0.80 | 1.17 | < 0.001*** | 5 < (1, 3, 2) < (3, 2, 4) | ||||
| MxD-Cant (°) | 0.83 | 0.50 | 2.87c | 0.96 | 1.03 | 0.85 | 3.40c | 1.67 | −0.87c | 0.61 | < 0.001*** | 5 < (1, 3) < (2, 4) | ||||||
| MdD-Cant (°) | 0.80 | 0.96 | 2.35† | 1.05 | 2.15† | 1.56 | 5.44c | 1.46 | 0.01 | 1.13 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1) < (3, 2) < 4 | ||||||
| MdS-Cant (°) | 0.61 | 1.11 | 1.05 | 0.91 | 1.30 | 1.58 | 3.81b | 1.46 | −0.30 | 1.74 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1) < (1, 2, 3) < 4 | ||||||
| MdB-Cant (°) | 0.52 | 1.48 | 1.17 | 0.98 | 1.36 | 1.60 | 3.94b | 1.80 | 0.17 | 1.73 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1, 2, 3) < 4 | ||||||
| p-value | 0.363 | < 0.001*** | 0.207 | < 0.001*** | < 0.011* | |||||||||||||
| Multiple comparison |
(MdS, MxS, MdB) < (MdD, MxD) | (MxS, MxD, MdS, MdB) < (MdS, MdB, MdD) | (MxD, MxS, MdS, MdD) < (MxS, MdS, MdD, MdB) | |||||||||||||||
| Distance | MxS-Cant (mm) | 0.45 | 1.32 | 1.26 | 1.22 | 1.07 | 2.22 | 2.13† | 1.51 | −0.84 | 1.22 | < 0.001*** | 5 < (1, 3, 2) < (3, 2, 4) | |||||
| MxD-Cant (mm) | 0.75 | 0.45 | 2.69§ | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.79 | 3.20§ | 1.56 | −0.81§ | 0.58 | < 0.001*** | 5 < (1, 3) < (2, 4) | ||||||
| MdD-Cant (mm) | 0.67 | 0.79 | 2.01† | 0.89 | 1.82† | 1.34 | 4.65§ | 1.35 | 0.02 | 0.93 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1) < (3, 2) < 4 | ||||||
| MdS-Cant (mm) | 0.90 | 1.64 | 1.63 | 1.39 | 2.00 | 2.36 | 5.74‡ | 2.12 | −0.42 | 2.54 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1) < (1, 2, 3) < 4 | ||||||
| MdB-Cant (mm) | 0.85 | 2.40 | 1.92 | 1.67 | 2.17 | 2.57 | 6.39‡ | 2.95 | 0.27 | 2.83 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1, 2, 3) < 4 | ||||||
| p-value | 0.664 | < 0.028* | 0.204 | < 0.001*** | < 0.096 | |||||||||||||
| Multiple comparison |
(MxS, MdS, MdB, MdD) < (MdS, MdB, MdD, MxD) | (MxS, MxD) < (MxD, MdD) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) | ||||||||||||||||
| Shift | MxS-Shift (mm) | 0.26 | 1.13 | −0.23 | 1.86 | 0.69 | 1.30 | 0.88 | 1.17 | 0.48 | 0.79 | 0.122 | ||||||
| MxD-Shift (mm) | 0.45 | 1.51 | 0.91 | 2.10 | 1.37 | 1.28 | 1.92 | 1.52 | 0.49 | 1.45 | 0.029* | |||||||
| MdD-Shift (mm) | 1.54 | 1.52 | 2.53 | 2.17 | 4.68‡ | 1.58 | 8.65§ | 1.74 | 1.83 | 1.68 | < 0.001*** | (1, 5, 2) < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| MdS-Shift (mm) | 1.58 | 1.55 | 3.14† | 2.13 | 5.39‡ | 1.47 | 10.25§ | 2.11 | 1.82 | 1.49 | < 0.001*** | (1, 5) < (5, 2) < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| MdB-Shift (mm) | 2.20 | 1.47 | 4.05† | 2.07 | 6.51‡ | 1.58 | 13.73§ | 2.79 | 2.19 | 1.49 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1) < 2 < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| p-value | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | |||||||||||||
| Multiple comparison |
(MxS, MxD) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) | (MxS, MxD) < (MxD, MdD) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) |
(MxS, MxD) < (MdD, MdS) < (MdS, MdB) |
(MxS, MxD) < (MdD, MdS) < MdB |
(MxD, MxS, MdS, MdD) < (MxS, MdS, MdD, MdB) | |||||||||||||
| Yaw | MxS-Yaw (°) | −0.14 | 1.57 | −0.03 | 1.81 | 0.64 | 1.49 | 1.19 | 1.37 | −0.24 | 1.35 | 0.042* | ||||||
| MxD-Yaw (°) | −0.55 | 1.87 | −0.12 | 1.60 | 0.18 | 2.00 | −0.14 | 1.20 | −0.32 | 1.92 | 0.677 | |||||||
| MdD-Yaw (°) | 0.41 | 1.93 | 1.42 | 1.74 | 3.72† | 1.63 | 6.97§ | 2.29 | 1.03 | 1.85 | < 0.001*** | (1, 5, 2) < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| MdS-Yaw (°) | 0.36 | 1.51 | 1.62 | 1.47 | 4.05‡ | 1.40 | 7.13§ | 2.29 | 1.08 | 1.09 | < 0.001*** | (1, 5) < (5, 2) < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| MdB-Yaw (°) | 0.53 | 1.43 | 1.73 | 1.29 | 4.52‡ | 1.42 | 8.54§ | 2.37 | 1.36 | 1.32 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1, 2) < 3 < 4 | ||||||
| p-value | 0.017* | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | < 0.001*** | |||||||||||||
| Multiple comparison |
(MxD, MxS, MdS, MdD) < (MxS, MdS, MdD, MdB) | (MxD, MxS, MdD) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) |
(MxD, MxS) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) |
(MxD, MxS) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) |
(MxD, MxS) < (MdD, MdS, MdB) |
|||||||||||||
| Ramus | FRA-difference (°) |
1.66 | 2.44 | 2.25 | 2.54 | 2.74 | 2.01 | 7.33‡ | 2.54 | 1.35 | 2.27 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1, 2, 3) < 4 | |||||
| RH-difference (mm) |
0.65 | 2.63 | 2.08 | 2.26 | 3.42† | 2.46 | 8.41‡ | 3.06 | 0.24 | 2.87 | < 0.001*** | (5, 1, 2) < (2, 3) < 4 | ||||||
The K-mean cluster analysis was conducted using three representative variables, which provide significant clinical information: MxD-Cant (mm), MdB-Shift (mm), and MdB-Yaw (°).
The one-way analysis of variance test with Tukey’s honestly significant difference post hoc comparison was conducted.
*p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
†Mild; ‡Moderate; §Severe.
See Table 2 for definitions of each measurement variable.
Figure 4.
Examples of the non-asymmetry type and 4 facial asymmetry phenotypes. 1) Non-asymmetry type (35.8%); 2) maxillary-cant (Max-Cant) type (14.2%; severe cant of the maxillary dentition, mild shift of the mandibular border); 3) mandibular-shift and yaw (Man-Shift-Yaw) type (16.7%; moderate shift and yaw of the mandibular border, mild ramus height difference); 4) complex type (9.2%; severe cant of the maxillary dentition, moderate cant, severe shift, and severe yaw of the mandibular border, moderate differences in frontal ramus angle and ramus height); and 5) maxillary reverse-cant (Max-Rev-Cant) type (24.2%; reverse-cant of the maxillary dentition).
The FA phenotypes in Class III patients were classified into five types according to their distinct morphological characteristics: non-asymmetry type (n = 43, 35.8%), maxillary-cant (Max-Cant) type (n = 17, 14.2%), mandibular-shift and yaw (Man-Shift-Yaw) type (n = 20, 16.7%), complex type (n = 11, 9.2%), and maxillary reverse-cant (Max-Rev-Cant) type (n = 29, 24.2%). In the non-asymmetry type, no significant asymmetry was observed.
The Max-Cant type demonstrated severe cant in the maxillary dentition (MxD-Cant, 2.9°, 2.7 mm) and mild cant in the mandibular dentition (MdD-Cant, 2.4°, 2.0 mm). A mild shift was observed in the mandible and mandibular border (MdS-Shift, 3.1 mm; MdB-Shift, 4.1 mm).
The Man-Shift-Yaw type exhibited moderate shift and mild yaw in the mandibular dentition (MdD-Shift, 4.7 mm; MdD-Yaw, 3.7°), moderate shift and yaw in the mandible (MdS-Shift, 5.4 mm; MdS-Yaw, 4.1°) and the mandibular border (MdB-Shift, 6.5 mm; MdB-Yaw, 4.5°), and mild RH-difference (3.4 mm). In addition, a mild cant was observed in the mandibular dentition (MdD-Cant, 2.2°, 1.8 mm).
The complex type demonstrated severe cant in the maxillary dentition (MxD-Cant, 3.4°, 3.2 mm); severe shift and yaw in the mandibular dentition (MdD-Shift, 8.7 mm; MdD-Yaw, 7.0°), mandible (MdD-Shift, 10.3 mm; MdD-Yaw, 7.1°), and mandibular border (MdB-Shift, 13.7 mm; MdB-Yaw, 8.5°); and moderate FRA-difference (7.3°) and RH-difference (8.4 mm). Mild cant in the maxilla (MxS-Cant, 2.1°, 2.1 mm), severe cant in the mandibular dentition (MdD-Cant, 5.4°, 4.7 mm), and moderate cant in the mandible (MdS-Cant, 3.8°, 5.7 mm) and mandibular border (MdB-Cant, 3.9°, 6.4 mm) were also observed.
The Max-Rev-Cant type revealed that the cant in the maxillary dentition (MxD-Cant, −0.9°, −0.8 mm) was expressed into the opposite direction of the Me deviation. However, there was no significant asymmetry in the mandibular border (MdB-Cant, 0.2°, 0.3 mm; MdB-Shift, 2.2 mm; MdB-Yaw, 1.4°).
Comparison of cant, yaw, and shift among the FA phenotypes (Table 4, Figure 4)
Cant was most significant in all parts in the complex type (MxS-Cant, 2.1°, 2.1 mm; MxD-Cant, 3.4°, 3.2 mm; MdD-Cant, 5.4°, 4.7 mm; MdS-Cant, 3.8°, 5.7 mm; MdB-Cant, 3.9°, 6.4 mm); followed by the maxillary and mandibular dentition in the Max-Cant type (MxD-Cant, 2.9°, 2.7 mm; MdD-Cant, 2.4°, 2.0 mm); and the mandibular dentition in the Man-Shift-Yaw type (MdD-Cant 2.2°, 1.8 mm) (all p < 0.001). However, in the Max-Rev-Cant type, reverse cant was observed at the maxilla and maxillary dentition (−0.8°, −0.8 mm and −0.9°, −0.8 mm; all p < 0.001).
Shift was most significant in the mandibular dentition, mandible, and mandibular border of the complex type (MdD-Shift, 8.7 mm; MdS-Shift, 10.3 mm; MdB-Shift, 13.7 mm); followed by the Man-Shift-Yaw type (MdD-Shift, 4.7 mm; MdS-Shift, 5.4 mm; MdB-Shift, 6.5 mm); and the mandible and mandibular border of the Max-Cant type (MdS-Shift, 3.1 mm; MdB-Shift, 4.1 mm) (all p < 0.001).
Yaw was most significant in the mandibular dentition, mandible, and mandibular border of the complex type, followed by the Man-Shift-Yaw type (MdD-Yaw, 7.0°, 3.7°; MdS-Yaw, 7.1°, 4.1°; MdB-Yaw, 8.5°, 4.5°; all p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION
Classification of the FA phenotypes (Tables 4 and 5, Figure 5)
Table 5.
Comparison of facial asymmetry classifications between this and previous studies
| Phenotype | This study | Hwang et al.9 Hwang et al.18 |
Baek et al.10 | Chen et al.15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | ||||
| Ethnicity | Korean | Korean | Korean | Taiwanese |
| Subjects | Patients who underwent orthognathic surgery | Patients who were diagnosed with facial asymmetry | Patients who wanted correction of facial asymmetry | Patients who wanted correction of facial asymmetry |
| Number | 120 | 100 | 43 | 70 |
| Study design | ||||
| Angle classification | Skeletal Class III | Skeletal Class I, II, and III | Skeletal Class I, II, and III | Skeletal Class III |
| Exclusion criteria |
|
|
|
|
| Reference planes | Horizontal plane | Frankfort horizontal plane | Frankfort horizontal plane | Mid-sagittal plane |
| Coronal plane | Mid-sagittal reference line | Coronal plane | Horizontal plane | |
| Mid-sagittal plane | Mid-sagittal plane | Coronal plane | ||
| Origin (0, 0, 0) | N point | None | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Variables for | Max-dental Cant (mm) | Menton deviation (°) | Upper midline deviation (mm) | The direction and magnitude oftransverse ramus discrepancy relative to menton deviation |
| classification | Man-border Shift (mm) | Apical base midline discrepancy (mm) | Maxilla canting of U3 and U6 (mm) | |
| Man-border Yaw (°) | Vertical difference of the right and left Ag (mm) | Arch form discrepancy (mm) | ||
| Horizontal difference of the right and left Ag (mm) | Gonion to the mid-sagittal plane (mm) | |||
| Maxillary base canting (°) | Ramus height (mm) | |||
| Maxillary alveolar canting (°) | Frontal ramus inclination (°) | |||
| Bulkiness difference of the mandibular inferior border | Menton deviation (mm) | |||
| Lip line canting (°) | ||||
| Inclusion of yaw | Yes | No | No | No |
| Analyzed data | 3D-CT | PA cephalogram and frontal photograph | 3D-CT | CBCT |
| Statistical method | Cluster analysis | Cluster analysis | Cluster analysis | No cluster |
| Types | Non-asymmetry type (35.8%) | Group E (Normal, 28%) | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| ||||
| Max-Cant type (14.2%) | Not mentioned | Group 2 (Universal lateral condylar hyperplasia asymmetry, 39%) | Not mentioned | |
| ||||
| Man-Shift-Yaw type (16.7%) | Group C (Menton type, 21%) | Group 1 (Mandibular body asymmetry, 44%) | Group 2 (27%) | |
|
|
|
||
| Complex type (9.2%) | Group A (Ramus–Menton type, 7%) | Group 4 (C-shaped asymmetry, 5%) | Group 1 (47%) | |
|
|
|
||
| Max-Rev-Cant type (24.2%) | Group B (Ramus–Angle type, 16%) | Group 3 (Atypical asymmetry, 12%) | Group 3 (26%) | |
|
|
|
||
| Not matched | Group D (Bulkiness type, 28%) | |||
|
Max-Cant, maxillary-cant; Man-Shift-Yaw, mandibular-shift and yaw; Max-Rev-Cant, maxillary reverse-cant; Ag, antegonion; U3, distance between Frankfort horizontal plane and midpoint of bracket slot of upper canine; U6, distance between Frankfort horizontal plane and midpoint of bracket slot of upper first molar; 3D-CT, three-dimensional computed tomography; PA, posteroanterior; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography.
Figure 5.
Flow chart that explains the characteristics of the facial asymmetry phenotypes in skeletal Class III patients who underwent orthognathic surgery.
Max-Cant, maxillary-cant; Man-Shift-Yaw, mandibular-shift and yaw; Max-Rev-Cant, maxillary reverse-cant; FRA, frontal ramus angle; RH, ramus height.
Approximately two-thirds (64.2%) of Class III patients who underwent orthognathic surgery had a significant FA. They were divided into four major FA clusters according to the existence of the shift and yaw in the mandibular border, the cant in the maxillary dentition, and a combination of these asymmetries (Man-Shift-Yaw type, Max-Cant type, Max-Rev-Cant type, and complex type; Figure 6). This finding was somewhat different from the classification of previous cluster analysis studies9,10,18 and a non-cluster analysis study (Table 5).15
Figure 6.
Strategic decompensation and surgical planning according to the facial asymmetry phenotypes.
Max-Cant, maxillary-cant; Man-Shift-Yaw, mandibular-shift and yaw; Max-Rev-Cant, maxillary reverse-cant; TAD, temporary anchorage device; IPW, inter-premolar width; IMW, inter-molar width; 3D, three-dimensional.
Characteristics of each FA phenotype (Tables 4 and 5, Figure 5)
The Max-Cant type was characterized by severe cant and molar height differences in the maxillary dentition, and mild cant and molar height differences in the mandibular dentition. These values indicated the remaining amounts of transverse occlusal plane (OP) cant and molar height difference after vertical decompensation by pre-operative orthodontic treatment. In addition, a mild shift of the mandibular border (Me deviation) into the deviated side, which might be induced by the cant of the maxilla. Since there was no significant difference in RH, the FA of the Max-Cant type in this study might not be caused by unilateral condylar hyperplasia.
The Man-Shift-Yaw type was characterized by moderate shift and yaw in the mandibular border and mild RH-difference. When the shift of the mandible occurs in the deviated side, it usually exhibits different molar inclinations (transverse buccolingual compensation). When the yaw of the mandible occurs in the deviated side, it results in an asymmetric molar relationship, distorted dental arch form, and discrepancy between the dental and basal arches (horizontal compensation). Moreover, the Man-Shift-Yaw type exhibited a mild cant and molar height difference in the mandibular. Since there was no significant cant in the maxillary dentition, the cant and molar height difference in the mandibular dentition might occur due to the shift and yaw of the mandible. Joondeph19 suggested that a functional shift at an early age might lead to remodeling of the condyle and glenoid fossa, resulting in asymmetric growth of the mandible.
Since the complex type was characterized by a combination of the Max-Cant type and the Man-Shift-Yaw type, it showed more complicated features of vertical, transverse, and horizontal dentoalveolar compensation. Since patients with hemifacial microsomia and other craniofacial anomalies were excluded in this study, the asymmetric growth of the mandible and compensation of the maxilla might be the causes of this FA type rather than a problem of the cranial base, at least in Class III patients.
In the Max-Rev-Cant type, since there was no significant asymmetry in the mandibular border, the reverse cant in the maxillary dentition may conceal the shift of the maxilla. Tay20 suggested that unilateral mastication on the Me deviation side was related to this FA type.
Strategic decompensation according to the FA phenotypes (Figure 6)
Cant correction is required for the Max-Cant type, complex type, and Max-Rev-Cant type. Maxillary and mandibular molar height discrepancies less than 3 mm and 1.5 mm, respectively, can be treated by unilateral intrusion/extrusion of these teeth using miniscrews (known as a temporary anchorage device [TAD]) during pre-operative orthodontic treatment.21,22 Then, the remaining molar height discrepancy and OP cant after pre-operative orthodontic treatment should be corrected by orthognathic surgery.
In the Man-Shift-Yaw type and the complex type, both transverse and horizontal decompensations are required to correct the shift and yaw in the mandibular dentition simultaneously. In terms of transverse decompensation of the molar inclinations, we can upright the posterior teeth on the basal arch and expand the inter-premolar width up to 4 mm and the inter-molar width up to 2 mm.23 Then, we have to decide whether we should intentionally create the posterior crossbite on the deviated side and increase the amount of maxillary and mandibular dental midline-off for maximizing the surgical correction of the shift.
During horizontal decompensation, it is important to coordinate the dental and basal arch forms and correct the asymmetric molar relationship. Since the amount of distalization of the mandibular posterior teeth is considered to be 3 mm,24,25 we can apply unilateral distalization of the mandibular posterior teeth in the deviated side up to 3 mm with TAD to maximize the surgical correction of the yaw.
Strategic surgical planning according to the FA phenotypes (Figure 6)
For correction of the remaining OP cant and molar height difference of the maxillary dentition after pre-operative orthodontic treatment in the Max-Cant type and the complex type, differential impaction of the maxilla can be performed. However, interference by the inferior nasal concha and nasal septum during impaction of the maxilla can result in deviation of the nasal septum and asymmetry of the nasal tip.26 To prevent these adverse effects, trimming of the nasal septum and inferior turbinectomy can be considered.26
If the difference in the amount of mandibular setback between the deviated and non-deviated sides is large in the Man-Shift-Yaw type and the complex type, there is a high probability of bony interferences between the proximal and distal segments of the mandible. This can cause displacement and torque of the condyle, which is one of the main causes of post-surgical relapse. To prevent these problems, the following should be considered: (1) meticulous removal of the bony interference between the proximal and distal segments, (2) a distal cutting technique and/or posterior bending osteotomy of the distal segment, (3) minimization of the vertical step interference between the proximal and distal segments, and (4) 3D simulation to correct yaw and FRA asymmetry.27-29
When the patient has a large difference in the soft tissue thickness or the degree of bony protuberance of the mandibular border between the deviated and non-deviated sides, angle reduction, centering genioplasty, and border contouring procedures can be considered in conjunction with orthognathic surgery or as the secondary operation after orthognathic surgery.
This FA phenotype classification might be an effective tool for the differential diagnosis and for proper surgical planning of Class III patients with FA. Although this study provided meaningful results and compared the results with previous studies (Table 5), the morphology of the mandible was not analyzed in this study. In the future, it would be necessary to investigate the morphological abnormalities, such as hemimandibular elongation and hemimandibular hyperplasia.
CONCLUSION
• In the present study, the classification and percentage distribution of the FA phenotypes obtained from K-means cluster analysis were as follows: Non-asymmetry type (35.8%); Max-Cant type (14.2%), which showed severe cant of the maxillary dentition, mild shift of the mandibular border; Man-Shift-Yaw type (16.7%), which presented moderate shift and yaw of the mandibular border, mild RH-difference; Complex type (9.2%) with severe cant of the maxillary dentition, moderate cant, severe shift, and severe yaw of the mandibular border, moderate differences in FRA and RH; and Max-Rev-Cant type (24.2%), which showed reverse-cant of the maxillary dentition.
• Important measurement variables for differential diagnosis and a primary guideline of pre-operative orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery planning according to FA classification in Class III patients were also presented.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI18C1638).
This article is partly from the PhD thesis of S.W.H.
Footnotes
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
References
- 1.Cheong YW, Lo LJ. Facial asymmetry: etiology, evaluation, and management. Chang Gung Med J. 2011;34:341–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Piao Y, Kim SJ, Yu HS, Cha JY, Baik HS. Five-year investigation of a large orthodontic patient population at a dental hospital in South Korea. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46:137–45. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.3.137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bergersen EO. Enlargement and distortion in cephalometric radiography: compensation tables for linear measurements. Angle Orthod. 1980;50:230–44. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1980)050<0230:EADICR>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Katsumata A, Fujishita M, Maeda M, Ariji Y, Ariji E, Langlais RP. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99:212–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.06.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hwang HS, Hwang CH, Lee KH, Kang BC. Maxillofacial 3-dimensional image analysis for the diagnosis of facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:779–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Maeda M, Katsumata A, Ariji Y, Muramatsu A, Yoshida K, Goto S, et al. 3D-CT evaluation of facial asymmetry in patients with maxillofacial deformities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102:382–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.10.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Baek SH, Cho IS, Chang YI, Kim MJ. Skeletodental factors affecting chin point deviation in female patients with class III malocclusion and facial asymmetry: a three-dimensional analysis using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104:628–39. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Akhil G, Senthil Kumar KP, Raja S, Janardhanan K. Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry: a systematic review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(Suppl 2):S433–7. doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.163491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hwang HS, Youn IS, Lee KH, Lim HJ. Classification of facial asymmetry by cluster analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:279.e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Baek C, Paeng JY, Lee JS, Hong J. Morphologic evaluation and classification of facial asymmetry using 3-dimensional computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:1161–9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kim JY, Jung HD, Jung YS, Hwang CJ, Park HS. A simple classification of facial asymmetry by TML system. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42:313–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.López DF, Botero JR, Muñoz JM, Cárdenas-Perilla R, Moreno M. Are there mandibular morphological differences in the various facial asymmetry etiologies? A tomographic three-dimensional reconstruction study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:2324–38. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.05.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tyan S, Park HS, Janchivdorj M, Han SH, Kim SJ, Ahn HW. Three-dimensional analysis of molar compensation in patients with facial asymmetry and mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod. 2016;86:421–30. doi: 10.2319/030915-142.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kim KA, Lee JW, Park JH, Kim BH, Ahn HW, Kim SJ. Targeted presurgical decompensation in patients with yaw-dependent facial asymmetry. Korean J Orthod. 2017;47:195–206. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chen YJ, Yao CC, Chang ZC, Lai HH, Yeh KJ, Kok SH. Characterization of facial asymmetry in skeletal Class III malocclusion and its implications for treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48:1533–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kwon SM, Baik HS, Jung HD, Jang W, Choi YJ. Diagnosis and surgical outcomes of facial asymmetry according to the occlusal cant and menton deviation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:1261–75. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hong M, Kim MJ, Shin HJ, Cho HJ, Baek SH. Three-dimensional surgical accuracy between virtually planned and actual surgical movements of the maxilla in two-jaw orthognathic surgery. Korean J Orthod. 2020;50:293–303. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2020.50.5.293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hwang HS, Thiesen G, Araújo TM, Freitas MP, Motta AT. An interview with Hyeon-Shik Hwang. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016;21:24–33. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.1.024-033.int. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Joondeph DR. Mysteries of asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117:577–9. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70205-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tay DK. Physiognomy in the classification of individuals with a lateral preference in mastication. J Orofac Pain. 1994;8:61–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Jeon YJ, Kim YH, Son WS, Hans MG. Correction of a canted occlusal plane with miniscrews in a patient with facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:244–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Takano-Yamamoto T, Kuroda S. Titanium screw anchorage for correction of canted occlusal plane in patients with facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:237–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Fleming PS, Lee RT, Mcdonald T, Pandis N, Johal A. The timing of significant arch dimensional changes with fixed orthodontic appliances: data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. J Dent. 2014;42:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sugawara J, Daimaruya T, Umemori M, Nagasaka H, Takahashi I, Kawamura H, et al. Distal movement of mandibular molars in adult patients with the skeletal anchorage system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:130–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Yu J, Park JH, Bayome M, Kim S, Kook YA, Kim Y, et al. Treatment effects of mandibular total arch distalization using a ramal plate. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46:212–9. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.4.212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.On SW, Baek SH, Choi JY. Quantitative evaluation of the postoperative changes in nasal septal deviation by diverse movement of the maxilla after Le Fort I osteotomy. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31:1251–15. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Baek SH, Kim TK, Kim MJ. Is there any difference in the condylar position and angulation after asymmetric mandibular setback? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;101:155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yang HJ, Hwang SJ. Change in condylar position in posterior bending osteotomy minimizing condylar torque in BSSRO for facial asymmetry. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42:325–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2013.05.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ho CT, Lin HH, Liou EJ, Lo LJ. Three-dimensional surgical simulation improves the planning for correction of facial prognathism and asymmetry: a qualitative and quantitative study. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40423. doi: 10.1038/srep40423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]