Child's Nervous System

, Volume 12, Issue 11, pp 640–653 | Cite as

Component bone marker displacements revealed by image-corrected cephalometric analysis

A lateral cephalometric study of the cranium in normal and craniosynostosis — an implant study
  • John L. Spolyar
  • Alexa Canady
  • John L. Spolyar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexa Canady
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OrthodonticsUniversity of Detroit-MercySouthfieldUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Craniofacial and Reconstructive SurgeryProvidence HospitalSouthfieldUSA
  3. 3.Pediatric NeurosurgeryChildren's Hospital of MichiganDetroitUSA
Original Paper


Displacement of bony component anatomy has not been comprehensively described in human cranial development. In this study, tantalum implants were used to define cranial bone position on serial cephalometric surveys. Image correction (ICCA method) was used to eliminate artifactual shift of component markers before serial analysis was used to define implant movement. In addition, applicable normative standards were used to assess all case presentations. Three normal subjects comprised a normal mixed longitudinal sample aged 2 to 84 months. Two plagiocephaly subjects were studied, one from 6 to 77 months and the other from 16 to 44 months of age. Three syndromic craniosynostosis subjects demonstrated both abnormal and normalized growth following craniotomy, from 14 to 45, from 0.5 to 5.5, and from 2 to 75 months of age. A pattern of backward rotation of cranial component anatomy was observed in three normal subjects and two plagiocephaly subjects. The posterior fossa (PF) showed the greatest growth activity, with displacement adjustments throughout the study, and the anterior cranial fossa (ACF) least growth activity, with imperceptible frontal bone movement after age 3 years. After traditional bifrontal craniotomy, an abnormal displacement growth pattern was observed from age 14 to 45 months in the patient with syndromic craniosynostosis (Pfeiffer syndrome). Extensive fronto-parietal “bossing” and grossly deficient movement in the PF were observed. However, after a bifrontal craniotomy that also crossed lambdoid sutures, a normalized pattern of displacement growth was observed in two Apert syndrome patients. These two patients with extensive syndromic craniosynostosis had cranial component pattern adjustments as in the normal and plagiocephalic subjects.

Key words

Cranial growth Craniosynostosis Cephalometry Bone markers Image correction Craniotomy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anonymous (1984) Answers to frequently asked questions. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MdGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broadbent BH Sr, Broadbent BH Jr, Golden WH (1975) Bolton standards of dento facial developmental growth. Mosby, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burdi AB, Kusnetz AB, Venes JL, Gebarski SS (1986) The natural history of the cranial coronal ring articulations: implications in understanding the pathogenesis of the Crouzon craniostenotic defects. Cleft Palate J 23:28–39Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coccaro PJ, McCarthy JG, Epstein FJ, Wood-Smith D, Converse JM (1980) Early and late surgery in craniofacial dysostosis: a longitudinal cephalometric study. Am J Orthod 77:421–436Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enlow DH (1982) Handbook of facial growth. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friede H, Lilia T, Anderson H, Johanson B (1983) Growth of the anterior cranial base after craniotomy in infants with premature synostosis of the coronal suture. Scand J Plast Surg 17:99–108Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friede H, Figueroa AA, Naegle ML, Gould HJ, Kay NC, Aduss H (1986) Craniofacial growth data for cleft lip patients in infancy to six years of age: potential applications. Am J Orthod 90:388–409Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friede H, Lilja J, Lauritzen C, Anderson H, Johanson B (1986) Skull morphology after early craniotomy in patients with premature synostosis of the coronal suture. Cleft Palate J 23 [Suppl 1]:1–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gasser RF (1976) Early formation of the basieranium in man. In: Bosma JF (ed) Development of the basicranium. US Department of Health Education and Welfare, Bethesda, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoyte D (1975) A critical analysis of the growth in length of the cranial base in morphogenesis and malformation of face and brain. (Original article ser, vol XI/7) The National Foundation, March of Dimes, pp 255–282Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreiborg S (1981) Crouzon syndrome, a clinical and reontgen cephalometric study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg [Suppl 18]:80Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kreiborg S (1986) Postnatal growth and development of the craniofacial complex in premature craniosynostosis. In: Cohen MM Jr (ed) Craniosynostosis, diagnosis, evaluation, and management. Raven Press, New York, pp 157–189Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreiborg S, Pruzansky S (1972) Roentgencephalometric and metallic implant studies in Aperts syndrome. Presented at the 50th General Session of the International Association of Dental Research, Las Vegas, abstract 289Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marchac D, Renier D (1981) Cranio-facial surgery for craniosynostosis. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 15:235–243Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marchac D, Renier D (1985) Craniofacial surgery for craniosynostosis improves facial growth: a personal case review. Ann Plast Surg 14:43–54Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCarthy JG, Coccaro PO, Epstein F, Converse JM (1978) Early skeletal release in the infant with craniofacial dysostosis. The role of the sphenozygomatic suture. Plast Reconstr Surg 62:335–334Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Resnick DK, Pollack IF, Albright AL (1995) Surgical management of the cloverleaf skull deformity. Pediatr Neurosurg 22:29–38Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riolo MS, Moyer RE, McNamara JA, Hunter WS (1974) An atlas of craniofacial growth: cephalometric standards from the University School Growth Study. (The University of Michigan, monograph 2 in Craniofacial growth series) Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rune B, Selvik G, Kreiborg S, Sarnas K-V, Kagstrom E (1979) Motion of bones and volume changes in the neurocranium after craniectomy in Crouzon's disease. A roentgen stereometric study. J Neurosurg 50:494–498Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rune B, Sarnas K-V, Selvik G, Jacobsson S (1980) Movement of the cleft maxilla in infants relative to the frontal bone. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study with the aid of metallic implants. Cleft Palate J 17:155–174Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott J H (1954) The growth of the human face. Proc R Soc Med 47:91–100Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sgouros S, Goldin JH, Hockley AD, Wake MJC (1996) Posterior skull surgery in craniosynostosis. Child's Nerv Syst 12:727–733Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spolyar JL, Vasileff W, MacIntosh RB (1993) Image-corrected cephalometric analysis (ICCA): design and evaluation. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 30:528–541Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venes J, Burdi AR (1985) Proposed role of the orbitosphenoid in craniofacial dysostosis. (Concepts in pediatric neurosurgery, vol 5) Karger, BaselGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Personalised recommendations

Component bone marker displacements revealed by image-corrected cephalometric analysis