title: An analysis of mandibular volume in hemifacial microsomia.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The mandibular deformity in hemifacial microsomia is characterized by ramus-condyle unit deficiency. The Pruzansky score classifies the proximal mandible according to aberrant condylar-unit structure. The authors sought to volumetrically evaluate the hemifacial mandible compared with controls, and to assess for Pruzansky score correlation.
  
  
  METHODS
  This is a retrospective analysis of children with hemifacial microsomia. Demographic information was obtained, and computed tomographic data were analyzed by segmentation and volumetric calculations. Age-matched controls were compared using the t test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Computed tomographic scans revealed 24 hemifacial and 13 controls: 62.5 percent right, 12.5 percent left, and 25 percent bilateral; and 34 percent type I, 28 percent type IIa, 16 percent type IIb, and 22 percent type III. Type IIb/III compared with type I/IIa were 11,100 and 17,773 mm, respectively (p = 0.0029). Segmental evaluation of type IIb/III versus type I/IIa showed 3590 versus 6510 mm for the proximal segments (p = 0.0022) and 7449 versus 10,829 mm for the dental-bearing segments (p = 0.0221). All hemifacial microsomia hemimandibles (types I to III) were significantly less than controls: 14,837 versus 20,418 mm (p = 0.0005). Both dentate and proximal hemifacial microsomia segments statistically decreased in volume with increasing Pruzansky score. The dentate segment of the unaffected hemifacial microsomia side was statistically less than controls.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study volumetrically characterized the hemifacial microsomia mandibular deformity. As expected, with increasing Pruzansky severity, hemimandibular and proximal segment volumes declined. Unexpectedly, the hemifacial dentate segment also proved significantly diminished, corresponding to the degree of proximal volume loss.
authors: New Haven, Conn.; and Philadelphia, Pa. From Yale Plastic Surgery, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.
authors: Derek M
authors: DM
authors: Steinbacher
authors: Alexander
authors: A
authors: Gougoutas
authors: Scott P
authors: SP
authors: Bartlett
references: 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.
references: Converse JM, Horowitz SL, Coccaro PJ, Wood-Smith D. The corrective treatment of the skeletal asymmetry in hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;52:221–232.
references: Franceschetti A, Klein D. Mandibulofacial dysostosis: A new hereditary syndrome. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh.) 1949;27:143–224.
references: Pruzansky S. Not all dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defects 1969;5:120–129.
references: Kaban LB, Mulliken JB, Murray JE. Three-dimensional approach to analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18:90–99.
references: Murray JE, Kaban LB, Mulliken JB. Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;74:186–199.
references: Mulliken JB, Kaban LB. Analysis and treatment of hemifacial microsomia in childhood. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14:91–100.
references: Kaban LB, Moses MH, Mulliken JB. Surgical correction of hemifacial microsomia in the growing child. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:9–19.
references: Poswillo D. The pathogenesis of the first and second branchial arch syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1973;35:302–328.
references: McCarthy JG. Craniofacial microsomia: A primary or secondary surgical treatment program. Clin Plast Surg. 1997;24:459–474.
references: Grayson BH, McCarthy JG, Bookstein F. Analysis of craniofacial asymmetry by multiplane cephalometry. Am J Orthod. 1983;84:217–224.
references: Grayson BH, Boral S, Eisig S, Kolber A, McCarthy JG. Unilateral craniofacial microsomia: Part I. Mandibular analysis. Am J Orthod. 1983;84:225–230.