Abstract
Objective
To investigate the distribution and phenotypes of hemifacial microsomia (HFM) and its association with other anomalies.
Methods
This study included 249 Korean patients with HFM, whose charts, photographs, radiographs, and/or computed tomography scans acquired during 1998–2018 were available from Seoul National University Hospital and Dental Hospital. Prevalence according to sex, side involvement, degree of mandibular deformity, compensatory growth of the mandibular body, and Angle's classification, and its association with other anomalies were statistically analyzed.
Results
Prevalence was not different between male and female patients (55.0% vs. 45.0%, p > 0.05). Unilateral HFM (UHFM) was more prevalent than bilateral HFM (BHFM) (86.3% vs. 13.7%, p < 0.001). Although distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types differed significantly in patients with UHFM (I, 53.0%; IIa, 18.6%; IIb, 24.7%; III, 3.7%; p < 0.001), no difference was observed in occurrence between the right and left sides (52.6% vs. 47.4%, p > 0.05). Among patients with BHFM, prevalence of different Pruzansky–Kaban types on the right and left sides was greater than that of the same type on both sides (67.6% vs. 32.4%, p < 0.05). Despite hypoplasia of the condyle/ramus complex, compensatory growth of the mandibular body on the ipsilateral side occurred in 35 patients (14.1%). Class I and II molar relationships were more prevalent than Class III molar relationships (93.2% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001). Forty-eight patients (19.3%) had other anomalies, with 50.0% and 14.4% in the BHFM and UHFM groups (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Patients with HFM require individualized diagnosis and treatment planning because of diverse phenotypes and associations with other anomalies.
Keywords: Distribution, Phenotype, Hemifacial macrosomia, Association with other anomalies
INTRODUCTION
Hemifacial microsomia (HFM) is the second most common facial anomaly, with a broad spectrum of phenotypes.1,2,3,4,5,6 Although it usually affects one side of the face, ears, mouth, and mandible, both sides are sometimes affected. HFM has heterogeneous etiological factors related to the alteration of mesodermal development as well as the increased susceptibility to vascular disruption.7,8,9 Most patients with HFM require long-term multidisciplinary medical and dental care to rehabilitate occlusal function and improve facial aesthetics.10,11,12,13,14
Vento et al.15 proposed the orbit, mandible, ear, nerve, soft tissue (OMENS) classification system, which grades 5 anatomic features of HFM according to severity on a scale from 0 to 3. Horgan et al.16 refined the OMENS classification system into the OMENS-plus classification system to account for the presence of extra-craniofacial anomalies (e.g., central nervous system, cardiac, pulmonary, renal, gastrointestinal, and vertebral deformities). Tuin et al.,17 in their association study between structures, suggested that deformities of structures that mainly developed from the first branchial arch (i.e., the orbit, mandible, and soft tissue) show a similar degree of severity. This also holds true for structures mainly derived from the second branchial arch (i.e., the facial nerve and ear). However, studies have shown that mandibular and ear deformities are the major features of the HFM classification system.18,19
The degree of mandibular deformity evaluated using the Pruzansky–Kaban classification system10,11,20,21 might be one of the most important factors in treatment planning and prognosis prediction of orthodontic treatment using unilateral functional appliances or surgical interventions, including mandibular distraction osteogenesis, orthognathic surgery, and costochondral graft.4,22,23 If patients with HFM show compensatory growth of the mandibular body despite hypoplasia of the condyle/ramus complex on the ipsilateral side, surgical intervention should be delayed until the completion of growth because of the possibility of severe chin point deviation to the non-affected side. In addition, Angle's classification is another important issue in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. If patients with HFM show a Class III molar relationship, distraction osteogenesis of the mandible cannot be performed because of the possibility of anterior crossbite.
The Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) plans to provide insurance benefits for orthodontic treatment to patients with HFM in the near future. Basic data on the distribution and phenotypes of patients with HFM can provide useful information for diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis evaluation. Several previous studies conducted in other countries have investigated the clinical characteristics of patients with HFM from the perspective of plastic surgery.19,24,25,26,27 However, no clinical demographic studies have investigated the distribution and phenotypes of Korean patients with HFM from an orthodontic perspective. Therefore, the purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the distribution and phenotypes of HFM and its association with other anomalies using clinical data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study sample comprised 249 Korean patients with HFM (mean age at first consultation, 7.07 ± 3.99 years), who visited the Multi-disciplinary Clinic, Department of Pediatric Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Children's Hospital (SNUCH) and the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Department of Orthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital (SNUDH) during 1998–2018. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with HFM and followed-up or treated and (2) patients whose charts, clinical photographs, cephalometric and panoramic radiographs, and/or three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were available. HFM prevalence according to sex, side involvement, degree of mandibular deformity, compensatory growth of the mandibular body, and Angle's classification, and its association with other anomalies were investigated. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the SNUDH (ERI19025).
Since Vento et al.15 confirmed the concept that mandibular deformity is the cornerstone of the anomaly, the degree of mandibular deformity has been evaluated using the Pruzansky–Kaban classification system. In this system, Type I indicates that the ramus/condyle complex has a normal shape but small size. In Type IIa, although the ramus/condyle complex is hypoplastic and abnormally shaped, the glenoid fossa is placed at the right position and the temporomandibular joint is functional. Type IIb indicates that the glenoid fossa is placed at the inferiorly, medially, and anteriorly altered positions with a severely hypoplastic ramus/condyle complex. Type III indicates the complete absence of the ramus/condyle complex and the glenoid fossa.11,20
Compensatory growth of the mandibular body was assessed using panoramic radiographs, posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs, and/or 3D-CT images. Compensatory growth of the mandibular body was identified if the lower dental midline was deviated to the unaffected side in patients with unilateral HFM (UHFM) and to the less severely deformed side in patients with bilateral HFM (BHFM). Angle's classification was assessed via molar relationships by using intraoral photographs or orthodontic models.
Descriptive statistics, chi-square goodness-of-fit test, chi-square independence test, and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis using SPSS for Windows, ver. 12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
Distribution of sex and sidedness
No difference was observed in HFM prevalence between male and female patients (n = 137 [55.0%] vs. n = 112 [45.0%], p > 0.05; Figure 1). UHFM was more prevalent than BHFM (n = 215 [86.3%] vs. n = 34 [13.7%], p < 0.001; Figure 1). Right-sided UHFM (n = 113) was the most common, followed by left-sided UHFM (n = 102) and BHFM (n = 34) (Figure 1). However, patients with UHFM showed no difference in occurrence between the right and left sides (n = 113 [52.6%] vs. n = 102 [47.4%], p > 0.05; Table 1).
Figure 1. Distribution of sex and side involvement in patients with hemifacial microsomia (HFM).
The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed (***p < 0.001).
Table 1. Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types and side involvement in patients with unilateral hemifacial microsomia.
Values are presented as number (%).
The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed (***p < 0.001).
Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with unilateral hemifacial microsomia
A significant difference was observed in the distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in these patients (Type I, n = 114 [53.0%]; Type IIa, n = 40 [18.6%]; Type IIb, n = 53 [24.7%]; and Type III, n = 8 [3.7%]; p < 0.001; Table 1).
Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with bilateral hemifacial microsomia
Patients with different Pruzansky–Kaban types on the right and left sides were more common than were those with the same type on both sides (n = 23 [67.6%] vs. n = 11 [32.4%], p < 0.05; Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with bilateral hemifacial macrosomia (n = 34).
Values are presented as number (%).
The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed (*p < 0.05).
Compensatory growth of the mandibular body
Despite hypoplasia of the condyle/ramus complex, compensatory growth of the mandibular body on the ipsilateral side occurred in 35 patients (14.1%; Table 3). No difference in prevalence of compensatory growth of the mandibular body was observed between patients with UHFM and BHFM (n = 33/215 [15.3%] vs. n = 2/34 [5.9%], p > 0.05; Table 3).
Table 3. Distribution of compensatory growth of the mandibular body at the ipsilateral side in patients with UHFM and BHFM.
Fisher's exact test was performed.
UHFM, Unilateral hemifacial macrosomia; BHFM, bilateral hemifacial macrosomia.
Angle's classification
Class I and II molar relationships were more prevalent than were Class III molar relationships (n = 232 [93.2%] vs. n = 17 [6.8%], p < 0.001; Table 4). No difference in the prevalence of Class III molar relationships was observed between patients with UHFM and BHFM (n = 12/215 [5.6%] vs. n = 5/34 [14.7%], p > 0.05; Table 4).
Table 4. Distribution of Angle's classification in patients with UHFM and BHFM.
UHFM, Unilateral hemifacial macrosomia; BHFM, bilateral hemifacial macrosomia.
***p < 0.001.
†Fisher's exact test was performed.
‡The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed.
Association with other craniofacial and extra-craniofacial anomalies
Forty-nine patients with HFM (19.7%) had other anomalies (n = 32 with UHFM and n = 17 with BHFM; Table 5). The association with other anomalies was more prevalent in patients with BHFM than in those with UHFM (n = 17/34 [50.0%] vs. n = 32/215 [14.9%], p < 0.001; Table 5).
Table 5. Distribution of the association with other anomalies in patients with UHFM and BHFM.
UHFM, Unilateral hemifacial macrosomia; BHFM, bilateral hemifacial macrosomia.
The chi-square independence test was performed (***p < 0.001).
Eight kinds of craniofacial anomalies were observed in 42 patients (n = 42/48, 87.5%) and six kinds of extra-craniofacial anomalies were observed in 9 patients (n = 9/48, 18.8%) (Table 6). Three patients had concomitant craniofacial and extra-craniofacial anomalies (Table 6). In terms of the number of associated anomalies, one anomaly was the most common (n = 37/49, 75.5%), followed by two anomalies (n = 11/49, 22.4%) and three anomalies (n = 1/49, 2.0%) (Table 6). Among the recorded anomalies (n = 61 in total; Table 6), relatively high associations were found with Goldenhar syndrome (n = 14/61, 23.0%), Tessier no. 7 craniofacial clefts (n = 10/61, 16.4%), missing teeth (n = 8/61, 13.1%), plagiocephaly (n = 8/61, 13.1%), and vertebral anomaly (n = 7/61, 11.5%; 3 with Klippel–Feil syndrome, 3 with scoliosis, and 1 with torticollis). A relatively low degree of association was found with oral cleft (n = 3/61, 4.9%; 2 with cleft palate and 1 with unilateral cleft lip and palate), cardiac anomaly (n = 3/61, 4.9%), Parry–Romberg syndrome (n = 3/61, 4.9%), micrognathia (n = 1/61, 1.6%), microstomia (n = 1/61, 1.6%), digit anomaly (n = 1/61, 1.6%), and chromosome anomaly (n = 1/61, 1.6%).
Table 6. Summary of the association with other anomalies.
UHFM, Unilateral hemifacial macrosomia; BHFM, bilateral hemifacial macrosomia; -, none.
*Craniofacial anomalies.
†Extra-craniofacial anomalies.
DISCUSSION
Distribution of sex and sidedness
The lack of a difference in the prevalence of HFM between male and female patients was in agreement with the results of previous studies, despite differences in geographical and ethnic factors (Table 7).15,19,25,27,28
Table 7. Summary of the results of sex, type, side involvement, and the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with unilateral HFM from previous studies.
HFM, Hemifacial macrosomia.
*Calculated from the data.
†Classification was modified from the data.
In the present study, the prevalence of UHFM was higher than that of BHFM. Moreover, no difference was observed in occurrence between the right and left sides among patients with UHFM. These results were also consistent with those of previous studies despite differences in geographical and ethnic factors (Table 7).15,24,25,27,28
Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with unilateral hemifacial microsomia
The distribution pattern of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with UHFM was similar to that reported by Park et al.24 However, these results differed from those of previous studies conducted in other countries (Table 7).15,19,27 The reasons for this difference could be the following. First, the subjects of this study were Korean patients with HFM. Second, in this study, patients with HFM who had skin tags or microtia and insignificant skeletal deformity were considered as showing the M1 (Type I) pattern. Park et al.24 suggested that patients with microtia could be considered as those with HFM Type I, because all patients with microtia tend to have minimal mandibular deficiency. Therefore, the total number of patients with the M0 (normal) and M1 (Type I) patterns in previous studies (51% in Vento et al.15; 50.1% in Caron et al.27; Table 7) would be similar to that in our study (53%, Table 7). Third, Takahashi-Ichikawa et al.29 reported that panoramic radiography was a reliable modality for evaluating patients with HFM Type I, while 3D-CT was preferred for evaluating patients with HFM Type II. Therefore, we recommend the use of two modalities for the clinical assessment of HFM types.
Distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types in patients with bilateral hemifacial microsomia
No previous studies have reported the differences in the Pruzansky–Kaban types between the right and left sides in patients with BHFM. According to the results of this study, different Pruzansky–Kaban types on the right and left sides were more prevalent than was the same type on both sides. This is a novel finding that should be considered, especially when planning distraction osteogenesis of the mandible on both sides.
Compensatory growth of the mandibular body
Despite hypoplasia of the condyle/ramus complex, compensatory growth of the mandibular body on the ipsilateral side occurred in 14.1% of patients with HFM (Table 3). This novel finding should be considered during diagnosis, treatment planning, and prognosis prediction for orthodontic and surgical interventions. If compensatory growth of the mandibular body occurs at the affected side, the lower dental midline and chin point would be shifted to the unaffected side. Therefore, when orthodontic treatment using unilateral functional appliances or surgical interventions, including mandibular distraction osteogenesis or costochondral graft, is performed, matching the lower dental midline and chin point to the facial midline is difficult.
Angle's classification
The finding that Class III molar relationships occurred in 6.8% of patients with HFM has clinical implications. Since patients with HFM usually have simultaneous hypoplasia of the condyle/ramus complex and mandibular body, the origin of the Class III molar relationships should be investigated in future studies. In addition, when patients with HFM show Class III molar relationships, distraction osteogenesis of the mandible cannot be performed at preadolescent and adolescent ages owing to the possibility of anterior crossbite. Therefore, orthognathic surgery should be considered after the completion of growth.
Association with other craniofacial and extra-craniofacial anomalies
Since the association with other craniofacial and extra-craniofacial anomalies was more prevalent in patients with BHFM than in those with UHFM, attention should be paid to the general medical condition of patients with BHFM for ensuring proper treatment planning and prognosis prediction.
In the present study, eight kinds of craniofacial anomalies were observed in 42 patients (87.5%) and six kinds of extra-craniofacial anomalies were observed in 9 patients (18.8%) (Table 6). Moreover, Goldenhar syndrome was the most commonly associated craniofacial anomaly. However, Goldenhar syndrome tends to be subjectively over diagnosed in patients who show more severe HFM features.30 The percentage of patients with HFM and extra-craniofacial anomalies in the current study was lower than that reported by Horgan et al.16 (55.4%), Park et al.24 (41.4%), and Caron et al.27 (35.0%). Park et al.24 reported no significant correlation between the total OMENS score and extra-craniofacial anomalies, despite significant correlations between the orbit and mandible, mandible and soft tissue, and facial nerve and soft tissue.
Despite the potential limitations of data collected from a single university hospital, we obtained meaningful basic information on the distribution and phenotypes of Korean patients with HFM who were diagnosed and followed-up or treated during the last two decades (1998–2018). The results of this study might serve as the basis for setting guidelines on health care utilization for the orthodontic treatment of patients with HFM. Nevertheless, nationwide multicenter studies with long-term follow-up and systematic statistical analyses have to be conducted to obtain information necessary for providing the sophisticated insurance plans of the KNHIS for orthodontic treatment of patients with HFM.
CONCLUSION
Patients with UHFM show a significant difference in the distribution of the Pruzansky–Kaban types. In patients with BHFM, different Pruzansky–Kaban types on the right and left sides were more prevalent than was the same type on both sides. Compensatory growth of the mandibular body on the ipsilateral side occurred in 14.1% of patients with HFM. Class III molar relationships occurred in 6.8% of patients with HFM. Other anomalies were more prevalent in patients with BHFM than in those with UHFM. Because of the diverse phenotypes of HFM and its association with other anomalies, patients with HFM require individualized diagnosis and treatment planning.
Footnotes
How to cite this article: Yang IH, Chung JH, Yim S, Cho IS, Lim SW, Kim K, Kim S, Choi JY, Lee JH, Kim MJ, Baek SH. Distribution and phenotypes of hemifacial microsomia and its association with other anomalies. Korean J Orthod 2020;50:33–41.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
References
- 1.Grabb WC. The first and second branchial arch syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965;36:485–508. doi: 10.1097/00006534-196511000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Longacre JJ. The surgical management of the first and second branchial arch syndrome. Br J Plast Surg. 1965;18:243–253. doi: 10.1016/s0007-1226(65)80044-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Converse JM, Coccaro PJ, Becker M, Wood-Smith D. On hemifacial microsomia. The first and second branchial arch syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;51:268–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Figueroa AA, Pruzansky S. The external ear, mandible and other components of hemifacial microsomia. J Maxillofac Surg. 1982;10:200–211. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0503(82)80042-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cousley RR, Calvert ML. Current concepts in the understanding and management of hemifacial microsomia. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50:536–551. doi: 10.1016/s0007-1226(97)91303-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gougoutas AJ, Singh DJ, Low DW, Bartlett SP. Hemifacial microsomia: clinical features and pictographic representations of the OMENS classification system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:112e–120e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000287383.35963.5e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Poswillo D. Hemorrhage in development of the face. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1975;11:61–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rollnick BR, Kaye CI. Hemifacial microsomia and variants: pedigree data. Am J Med Genet. 1983;15:233–253. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320150207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hartsfield JK. Review of the etiologic heterogeneity of the oculo-auriculo-vertebral spectrum (Hemifacial Microsomia) Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10:121–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00391.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kaban LB, Moses MH, Mulliken JB. Correction of hemifacial microsomia in the growing child: a follow-up study. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23 Suppl 1:50–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kaban LB, Moses MH, Mulliken JB. Surgical correction of hemifacial microsomia in the growing child. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:9–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Choi JY, Hwang KG, Baek SH, Lee JH, Kim TW, Kim MJ, et al. Original sagittal split osteotomy revisited for mandibular distraction. J Maxillofac Surg. 2001;29:165–173. doi: 10.1054/jcms.2001.0211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kim S, Seo YJ, Choi TH, Baek SH. New approach for the surgico-orthodontic treatment of hemifacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:957–963. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dfa09. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Suh J, Choi TH, Baek SH, Kim JC, Kim S. Mandibular distraction in unilateral craniofacial microsomia: longitudinal results until the completion of growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1244–1252. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48cf9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Vento AR, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. The O.M.E.N.S. classification of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:68–76. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0068_tomens_2.3.co_2. discussion 77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Horgan JE, Padwa BL, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. OMENS-Plus: analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:405–412. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0405_opaoca_2.3.co_2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tuin AJ, Tahiri Y, Paine KM, Paliga JT, Taylor JA, Bartlett SP. Clarifying the relationships among the different features of the OMENS+ classification in craniofacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:149e–156e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Keogh IJ, Troulis MJ, Monroy AA, Eavey RD, Kaban LB. Isolated microtia as a marker for unsuspected hemifacial microsomia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133:997–1001. doi: 10.1001/archotol.133.10.997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Poon CC, Meara JG, Heggie AA. Hemifacial microsomia: use of the OMENS-Plus classification at the Royal Children's Hospital of Melbourne. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1011–1018. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000046245.44567.D6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Pruzansky S. Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1969;5:120–129. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kaban LB, Padwa B, Mulliken JB. Mandibular deformity in hemifacial microsomia: a reassessment of the Pruzansky and Kaban classification. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:657e–658e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mulliken JB, Kaban LB. Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia in childhood. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14:91–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Baek SH, Kim S. The determinants of successful distraction osteogenesis of the mandible in hemifacial microsomia from longitudinal results. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16:549–558. doi: 10.1097/01.scs.0000159939.85745.a8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Park JU, Do TH, Kwon GY, Choi TH, Kim S. Statistical analysis using the OMENS classification in Oriental patients with hemifacial microsomia: a comparative analysis with Western centers. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:50–55. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182586c02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Xu S, Zhang Z, Tang X, Yin L, Liu W, Shi L. The influence of gender and laterality on the incidence of hemifacial microsomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:384–387. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Heike CL, Wallace E, Speltz ML, Siebold B, Werler MM, Hing AV, et al. Characterizing facial features in individuals with craniofacial microsomia: a systematic approach for clinical research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2016;106:915–926. doi: 10.1002/bdra.23560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Caron CJJM, Pluijmers BI, Wolvius EB, Looman CWN, Bulstrode N, Evans RD, et al. Craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in craniofacial microsomia: a multicenter study of 755 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1302–1310. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fan WS, Mulliken JB, Padwa BL. An association between hemifacial microsomia and facial clefting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63:330–334. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Takahashi-Ichikawa N, Susami T, Nagahama K, Ohkubo K, Okayasu M, Uchino N, et al. Evaluation of mandibular hypoplasia in patients with hemifacial microsomia: a comparison between panoramic radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50:381–387. doi: 10.1597/11-188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tuin J, Tahiri Y, Paliga JT, Taylor JA, Bartlett SP. Distinguishing Goldenhar syndrome from craniofacial macrosomia. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26:1887–1892. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]