McIntyre G T, Mossey P A
Orthodontic Department, Dundee Dental Hospital and School, UK.
Eur J Orthod. 2004 Aug;26(4):375-84. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.4.375.
The parental craniofacial morphology in orofacial clefting (OFC) has been shown to differ from that of the non-cleft population when evaluated using conventional cephalometric analyses comprising a variety of linear, angular, and area measurements. In spite of this, the shape of the parental craniofacial complex is of greater importance in the search for the morphogenes involved in OFC. This retrospective case-control study employed three morphometric techniques [discriminant analysis of the principal components of shape (PCS), Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA), and thin-plate spline analysis (TPS)] to localize the craniofacial skeletal shape differences between (a) the parents of children with OFC and a comparison group, (b) the parents of children with cleft lip and palate [CL(P)] and cleft palate (CP), and (c) the male and female parents of children with OFC. The postero-anterior (PA) cephalograms of 92 parents of children with non-syndromic OFC and 43 comparison group volunteers were scanned and digitized. The configurations of 24 reproducible landmarks were optimally superimposed using Procrustes algorithms to allow shape data to be derived using PCS, EDMA, and TPS. The parental craniofacial shape statistically significantly differed from that of the comparison group using PCS (P < 0.001) and EDMA (P = 0.001). However PCS, EDMA, and TPS differed in their localization of the shape differences, explainable by the different mathematical methods used by the individual techniques. Interestingly, the parental craniofacial shapes in CL(P) and CP were morphologically similar when tested using PCS (P = 0.03) and EDMA (P = 0.027). However, there was no shape-related sexual dimorphism in parental craniofacial morphology in OFC when tested using PCS (P = 0.35) and EDMA (P = 0.525). Thus, the parental craniofacial shape in OFC differs from the non-cleft population, the parental craniofacial shape does not differ between CL(P) and CP and there is no sexual dimorphism in the parental craniofacial morphology in OFC, as viewed on PA cephalograms.
当使用包含各种线性、角度和面积测量的传统头影测量分析进行评估时，已显示口面部裂隙（OFC）患者父母的颅面形态与非裂隙人群不同。尽管如此，在寻找参与OFC的形态发生基因时，父母颅面复合体的形状更为重要。这项回顾性病例对照研究采用了三种形态测量技术[形状主成分判别分析（PCS）、欧几里得距离矩阵分析（EDMA）和薄板样条分析（TPS）]来定位（a）OFC患儿父母与对照组之间、（b）唇腭裂[CL（P）]和腭裂（CP）患儿父母之间以及（c）OFC患儿的父母男性和女性之间的颅面骨骼形状差异。对92名非综合征性OFC患儿的父母和43名对照组志愿者的后前位（PA）头影测量片进行扫描和数字化处理。使用普洛克斯算法对24个可重复标志点的构型进行最佳叠加，以便使用PCS、EDMA和TPS得出形状数据。使用PCS（P<0.001）和EDMA（P = 0.001）时，父母的颅面形状在统计学上与对照组有显著差异。然而PCS、EDMA和TPS在形状差异的定位上有所不同，这可以通过各技术使用的不同数学方法来解释。有趣的是，使用PCS（P = 0.03）和EDMA（P = 0.027）测试时，CL（P）和CP中父母的颅面形状在形态上相似。然而，使用PCS（P = 0.35）和EDMA（P = 0.525）测试时，OFC中父母的颅面形态没有与形状相关的性别二态性。因此，从PA头影测量片来看，OFC中父母的颅面形状与非裂隙人群不同，CL（P）和CP之间父母的颅面形状没有差异，且OFC中父母的颅面形态没有性别二态性。
