Three-dimensional assessment of facial asymmetry in class III subjects, part 2: evaluating asymmetry index and asymmetry scores.

objectivesTo evaluate the outcomes of corrective surgical treatment for craniofacial asymmetry using four different methods with the aim of developing the best technique for craniofacial asymmetry assessment. MATERIALS AND

methodsCBCT images of twenty-one class III subjects with surgically corrected craniofacial asymmetry and twenty-one matched controls were analyzed. Twenty-seven hard tissue landmarks were used to quantify asymmetry using the following methodologies: the asymmetry index (AI), asymmetry scores based on the clinically derived midline (CM), Procrustes analysis (PA), and modified Procrustes analysis (MPA).

resultsModified Procrustes analysis successfully identified pre-operative asymmetry and revealed severe asymmetry at the mandibular regions compared to controls, which was comparable to the asymmetry index and clinically derived midline methods, while Procrustes analysis masked the asymmetric characteristics. Likewise, when comparing the post-surgical outcomes, modified Procrustes analysis not only efficiently determined the changes evidencing decrease in facial asymmetry but also revealed significant residual asymmetry in the mandible, which was congruent with the asymmetry index and clinically derived midline methods but contradictory to the results shown by Procrustes analysis.

conclusionsIn terms of quantifying cranio-facial asymmetry, modified Procrustes analysis has evidenced to produce promising results that were comparable to the asymmetry index and the clinically derived midline, making it a more viable option for craniofacial asymmetry assessment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Modified Procrustes analysis is proficient in evaluating cranio-facial asymmetry with more valid clinical representation and has potential applications in assessing asymmetry in a wide spectrum of patients, including syndromic patients.