Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 667–679 | Cite as

Characterization of the perinatal mandible growth pattern: preliminary results

  • F. Remy
  • Y. Godio-Raboutet
  • E. Verna
  • G. Gorincour
  • P. Bonnaure
  • P. Adalian
  • L. Guyot
  • L. Thollon
Original Article
  • 114 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The fetal development of the mandible is nowadays quite understood, and it is already known that craniofacial growth reaches its highest rate during the first 5 years of postnatal life. However, there are very few data focusing on the perinatal period. Thus, the present article is addressing this concern by studying the mandible morphology and its evolution around the birth with a morphometric method.

Methods

Thirty-one mandibles modelled in three dimensions from post-mortem CT-scans were analyzed. This sample was divided into two subgroups composed of, respectively, 15 fetuses (aged from 36 gestational weeks), and 16 infants (aged to 12 postnatal weeks). 17 distances, 3 angles, and 8 thicknesses were measured via the prior set of 14 landmarks, illustrating the whole mandible morphology.

Results

Although this methodology may depend on the image reconstruction quality, its reliability was demonstrated with low variability in the results. It highlighted two distinct growth patterns around birth: fetuses mandibles do not significantly evolve during the perinatal period, whereas, from the second postnatal weeks, most of the measurements increased in a homogeneous tendency and in correlation with age.

Conclusions

The protocol developed in this study highlighted the morphologic evolution of the mandible around birth, identifying a different growth pattern from 2 postnatal weeks, probably because of the progressive activation of masticatory muscles and tongue. However, considering the small sample size, these results should be thorough, so identification and management of anatomic abnormalities could eventually be achieved.

Keywords

Mandible Infant Fetus Mandibular hypoplasia Biometrics Anthropology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Berengere Saliba-Serre for her advices in the statistical analysis of our data.

Author contributions

FR: protocol development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. YG: project development, data analysis, and manuscript editing. EV: project development and manuscript editing. GG: data collection and manuscript editing. PB: project development and manuscript editing. PA: project development and manuscript editing. LG: project development and manuscript editing. LT: project development, data analysis, and manuscript editing.

Supplementary material

276_2018_2030_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Buschang PH, Jacob H, Carrillo R (2013) The morphological characteristics, growth, and etiology of the hyperdivergent phenotype. Semin Orthod 19:212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen MM (1999) Robin sequences and complexes: causal heterogeneity and pathogenetic/phenotypic variability. Am J Med Genet 84:311–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eriksen J, Hermann NV, Darvann TA, Kreiborg S (2006) Early postnatal development of the mandible in children with isolated cleft palate and children with nonsyndromic robin sequence. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 43:160–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM (1992) Anthropometric growth study of the head. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 29:303–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hermann NV, Kreiborg S, Darvann TA et al (2003) Early craniofacial morphology and growth in children with nonsyndromic robin sequence. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 40:131–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hermann NV, Darvann TA, Sundberg K et al (2010) Mandibular dimensions and growth in 11-to 26-week-old Danish fetuses studied by 3D ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 30:408–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutchinson E (2010) An assessment of growth and sex from mandibles of cadaver foetuses and newborns. MSc thesis, University of Pretoria Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hutchinson EF, L’Abbé EN, Oettlé AC (2012) An assessment of early mandibular growth. Forensic Sci Int 217:233.e1–233.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchinson EF, Kieser JA, Kramer B (2014) Morphometric growth relationships of the immature human mandible and tongue. Eur J Oral Sci 122:181–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones K (1997) Smith’s recognizable patterns of human malformations, 5th edn. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Y-P, Behrents RG, Buschang PH (2010) Mandibular growth, remodeling, and maturation during infancy and early childhood. Angle Orthod 80:97–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loth SR, Henneberg M (2001) Sexually dimorphic mandibular morphology in the first few years of life. Am J Phys Anthropol 115:179–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lowe AA, Takada K, Yamagata Y, Sakuda M (1985) Dentoskeletal and tongue soft-tissue correlates: a cephalometric analysis of rest position. Am J Orthod 88:333–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicolaides K, Salvesen D, Snijders R, Gosden C (1993) Fetal facial defects - associated malformations and chromosomal-abnormalities. Fetal Diagn Ther 8:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliveira FT de, Soares MQS, Sarmento VA et al (2014) Mandibular ramus length as an indicator of chronological age and sex. Int J Legal Med 129:195–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perera DMD, McGarrigle HHG, Lawrence DM, Lucas M (1987) Amniotic fluid testosterone and testosterone glucuronide levels in the determination of foetal sex. J Steroid Biochem 26:273–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radlanski RJ, Heikinheimo K, Gruda A (2013) Cephalometric assessment of human fetal head specimens. J Orofac Orthop-Fortschritte Kieferorthopadie 74:332–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reinisch JM, Ziemba-Davis M, Sanders SA (1991) Hormonal contributions to sexually dimorphic behavioral development in humans. Psychoneuroendocrinology 16:213–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sanz-Cortés M, Gomez O, Puerto B (2012) Chap. 70—micrognathia and retrognathia. In: Copel JA (ed) Obstetric imaging, 1st edn. Elsevier Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scheuer L (2002) A blind test of mandibular morphology for sexing mandibles in the first few years of life. Am J Phys Anthropol 119:189–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott AR, Tibesar RJ, Lander TA et al (2011) Mandibular distraction osteogenesis in infants younger than 3 months. Arch Facial Plast Surg 13:173–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smartt JM, Low DW, Bartlett SP (2005) The pediatric mandible: I. A primer on growth and development. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:14e–23eCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tracy WE, Savara BS (1966) Norms of size and annual increments of five anatomical measures of the mandible in girls from 3 to 16 years of age. Arch Oral Biol 11:587–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADESFaculté de Médecine-Secteur NordMarseille Cedex 15France
  2. 2.Aix Marseille Univ, IFSTTAR, LBA UMR_T24Faculté de Médecine-Secteur NordMarseille Cedex 20France
  3. 3.Département d’Imagerie pédiatrique et prénatale, Hôpital des Enfants la TimoneAssistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille-Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille Cedex 5France
  4. 4.Laboratoire d’Imagerie Interventionnelle et Expérimentale LiiE, EA 4264Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseilleFrance
  5. 5.Société YooMedMontpellierFrance
  6. 6.Cabinet de chirurgie dentaireRennesFrance
  7. 7.Service de chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale et Stomatologie, chirurgie plastique et réparatrice, Hôpital NordAssistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille-Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille Cedex 20France

Personalised recommendations