PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8748346

Turribrachycephaly: a technical note.

Abstract

We describe a technique for early correction of the so-called towering skull deformity, or turribrachycephaly. The technique makes use of the natural elasticity and plasticity of cranial bone, and it is best applied during the first year of life. Surgery consist of routine exposure of the cranial bone via a coronal incision. The frontal bone flap is elevated and removed. On either side, a bony osteotomy is then made, commencing low down in the temporal region and running posteriorly and superiorly toward the occiput. This approach leaves a superior bone flap, which may be left attached to the occipital bone via a flexible posterior hinge region, or completely detached by continuing the osteotomy across the midline. After the osteotomy, the bone flap is elevated up to the sagittal sinus on either side of the midline. The bone flap is not removed, but pushed down, compressing the brain along the craniocaudal axis. The lateral edge of the flap overlaps the temporal bone, and it can be fixed in the desired position by means of simple positional screws or Vicryl sutures. A standard fronto-orbital advancement is performed prior to lowering the skull vault, which permits the brain to be moved down and forward, filling the dead space in the anterior cranial fossa. The frontal bone flap is then shaped appropriately and fixed by means of plates and screws to the advanced fronto-orbital bar. Posteriorly, the frontal lobe is left "floating." To date, we have performed this technique on 5 patients, and we find it both faster and simpler than other techniques. Short-term results in terms of cranial shape are good. In older infants (> 2 years of age), this technique may not prove useful because of the loss of the loss of plasticity of the bone.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S R Cohen, T M de Chalain, F D Burstein, R Hudgins, W Boydston. 1995. Turribrachycephaly: a technical note.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8748346/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Morphometry of the midfacial complex in subjects with class III malocclusions: Procrustes, Euclidean, and cephalometric analyses.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the morphology of the midface differed in subjects with a retrognathic midfacial appearance (Class III malocclusions) using a combination of morphometric and cephalometric analyses. After obtaining appropriate consent, lateral cephalographs of 133 children of European-American descent, ages 5-11 years, were compared: 73 had Class III malocclusion, 60 had normal (Class I) occlusion. The cephalographs were traced and subdivided into seven age- and sex-matched groups. Average geometries based upon seven nodes (pterygoid point, PTS; rhinion, RO; posterior nasal spine, PNS; midpalatal point, MPP; anterior nasal spine, ANS; subspinale, A; prosthion, Pr), scaled to an equivalent size, were compared using a Procrustes routine. Euclidean distance matrix analysis (EDMA) was employed to localize differences in morphology. Bivariate analyses on unscaled data utilizing nine linear and six angular measurements were also undertaken. Results from Procrustes and EDMA analyses indicated that although the overall midfacial configurations differed statistically (P < 0.05), only about half of the seven age sub-groups maintained significance. Similarly, only four of the nine linear measures (PNS-MPP, MPP-ANS, A-Pr and PTS-RO) and two of the six angular parameters (PTS-RO-ANS and ANS-A-Pr) tested were significantly different (P < 0.05). Therefore, midfacial morphometric variability and morphological diversity may mask statistical differences. It is concluded that the midface may be the defining craniofacial component in the final appearance of Class III malocclusions compared to other craniofacial components, including the cranial base and mandible.

Cephalometry

Current knowledge in cleft lip and palate treatment from an orthodontist's point of view.

The aim of this review was to put new clinical research findings into proper perspectives relative to previously accepted knowledge on treatment of patients with cleft lip and palate. The first part of the paper deals with various aspects of infant orthopedic treatment, such as its influence on primary surgery, maxillary arch form and dimensions, feeding, psychological situation of the parents and speech development. Following parts analyze general maxillofacial growth outcome after surgery and also maxillofacial growth in relation to particular surgical procedures (palatal repair, periosteoplasty/gingivoplasty, bone grafting). The last part of the review discuss the effects of certain orthodontic/orthopedic treatment approaches as well as the role of dental implants in treatment of cleft lip and palate patients.

Cephalometry