Find research datasets worth reusing

Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.

196

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Dataset results

196 results for “Craniofacial”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗

dryad36/100

Data from: Evolvability and craniofacial diversification in genus Homo

There is abundant theoretical and empirical evidence for the influence of variational properties of populations on microevolution, and more limited support for their lasting impact during macroevolution. This study applies evolutionary quantitative genetic approaches to assess the long-term impact of within-population phenotypic variation and covariation (the P matrix) on population divergence in recent humans and species diversification in genus Homo. Similarity between the primary axes of within- and between-population craniofacial variation confirms a role for pmax in human population divergence, although diversification is not constrained to be unidimensional. The long term impact of the P matrix on craniofacial evolution is supported by higher-than-average evolvabilities along most branches of the Homo tree, but statistical uncertainty inherent in the data reduce confidence in this conclusion. Higher evolvability is not statistically correlated with increased rate of evolution, although the relationship is in the predicted direction. This is due in part to the high evolutionary rate on the early modern human branch despite its moderate level of evolvability. There was evidence for neutral evolution as well as directional and stabilizing selection over the Plio-Pleistocene using generalized genetic distance as a test statistic.

opencc-zeroDec 2017View details →

dryad36/100

Data from: Foraging-induced craniofacial plasticity is associated with an early, robust, and dynamic transcriptional response

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of a single genotype to vary its phenotype in response to the environment. Plasticity of the skeletal system in response to mechanical input is widely studied, but the timing of its transcriptional regulation is not well-understood. Here we used the cichlid feeding apparatus to examine the transcriptional dynamics of skeletal plasticity over time. Using three closely related species that vary in their ability to remodel bone and a panel of 11 genes, including well studied skeletal differentiation markers and newly characterized environmentally sensitive genes, we examined plasticity at 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks following the onset of alternate foraging challenges. We found that the plastic species exhibited environment-specific bursts in gene expression at 1 week, followed by a sharp decline in levels, while the species with more limited plasticity exhibited consistently low levels of gene expression. This trend held across nearly all genes, suggesting that it is a hallmark of the larger plasticity regulatory network. We conclude that plasticity of the cichlid feeding apparatus is not the result of slowly accumulating gene expression difference over time, but rather is stimulated by early bursts of environment-specific gene expression followed by a return to homeostatic levels.

opencc-zeroMar 2024View details →

dryad36/100

Research methods and Comparative examination of pinniped craniofacial musculature and its role in aquatic feeding

Secondarily aquatic tetrapods have many unique morphological adaptations for life underwater compared to their terrestrial counterparts. A key innovation during the land-to-water transition was feeding. Pinnipeds, a clade of air-breathing marine carnivorans that includes seals, sea lions, and walruses, have evolved multiple strategies for aquatic feeding (e.g., biting, suction feeding). Numerous studies have examined pinniped skull and dental specializations for underwater feeding. However, data on the pinniped craniofacial musculoskeletal system and its role in aquatic feeding are rare. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to conduct a comparative analysis of pinniped craniofacial musculature and examine the function of the craniofacial musculature in facilitating different aquatic feeding strategies. We performed anatomical dissections of 35 specimens across six pinniped species. We describe 32 pinniped craniofacial muscles—including facial expression, mastication, tongue, hyoid, and soft palate muscles. Pinnipeds broadly conform to mammalian patterns of craniofacial muscle morphology. Pinnipeds also exhibit unique musculoskeletal morphologies—in muscle position, attachments, and size—that likely represent adaptations for different aquatic feeding strategies. Suction feeding specialists (bearded and northern elephant seals) have a significantly larger masseter than biters. Further, northern elephant seals have large and unique tongue and hyoid muscle morphologies compared with other pinniped species. These morphological changes likely help generate and withstand suction pressures necessary for drawing water and prey into the mouth. In contrast, biting taxa (California sea lions, harbor, ringed, and Weddell seals) do not exhibit consistent craniofacial musculoskeletal adaptations that differentiate them from suction feeders. Generally, we discover that all pinnipeds have well-developed and robust craniofacial musculature. Pinniped head musculature plays an important role in facilitating different aquatic feeding strategies. Together with behavioral and kinematic studies, our data suggest that pinnipeds' robust facial morphology allows animals to switch feeding strategies depending on the environmental context—a critical skill in a heterogeneous and rapidly changing underwater habitat.

opencc-zeroMay 2022View details →

zenodo36/100

Retrospective cumulative dietary risk assessment of craniofacial alterations by residues of pesticides

EFSA established cumulative assessment groups and conducted retrospective cumulative risk assessments for two types of craniofacial alterations (alterations due to abnormal skeletal development, head soft tissue alterations and brain neural tube defects) for 14 European populations of women in childbearing age. Cumulative acute exposure calculations were performed by probabilistic modelling using monitoring data collected by Member States in 2017, 2018 and 2019. A rigorous uncertainty analysis was performed using expert knowledge elicitation. Considering all sources of uncertainty, their dependencies and differences between populations, it was concluded with varying degrees of certainty that the MOET resulting from cumulative exposure is above 100 for the two types of craniofacial alterations. The threshold for regulatory consideration established by risk managers is therefore not exceeded. Considering the severity of the effects under consideration, it was also assessed whether the MOET is above 500. This was the case with varying levels of certainty for the head soft tissue alterations and brain neural tube defects. However, for the alterations due to abnormal skeletal development, it was found about as likely as not that the MOET is above 500 in most populations. For two populations, it was even found more likely that the MOET is below 500. These results were discussed in the light of the conservatism of the methodological approach. The indicators of craniofacial alterations, input and output data for the exposure assessment are reported in the following annexes: • Annex A – Indicators of craniofacial alterations collected for 85 selected active substances; • Annex B1 – Input data for the exposure assessment of CAG-DACL; • Annex B2 – Input data for the exposure assessment of CAG-DAH; • Annex C1 – Output data for the Tier I exposure assessment of CAG-DAC; • Annex C2 – Output data for the Tier I exposure assessment of CAG-DAH; • Annex D1 – Output data for the Tier II exposure assessment of CAG-DAC; • Annex D2 – Output data for the Tier II exposure assessment of CAG-DAH.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2022View details →

zenodo36/100

Craniofacial landmark coordinates of DS mouse models

<h2>DATA Description</h2> We make available the data used for craniofacial analysis of nine Down syndrome mouse models. For each DS model, one Zip file is available and contains -      a minimum of four text files with all individual coordinates by genotype (DS model or wt control) for the skull or the mandibule (Mdb): o   the first line of the text file describes the content: Cranium or mandible coordinate + wt control or DS model genotype + Sex (male or female) o   XYZ coordinates o   39L (how many landmarks) 3 (how many coordinates) 10A (how many samples) o   The list of used landmarks (see figure 1 and Tables S1-S2) o   Before the coordinate, the ID (number) of the individual is indicated  -        Tiff files for all individuals used with the model that are in two folders, one for the DS/Dp model and one for the wt controls. All Tiff files are named with the ID number of the individual.  <h2>Down Syndrome mouse models used</h2> We used the Dp(16)1Yey and Tg(Dyrk1a) (official name Dp(16Lipi-Zbtb21)1Yey and Tg(Dyrk1a)189N3Yah) models (Li et al. 2007; Guedj et al. 2012) which were maintained on the C57BL/6J genetic background. We also used the SD: CRL Dp (11Lipi-Zbtb21)1Yah (short name Dp(Rno11)) rat model generated in the lab (Birling et al. 2017) that carries a duplication of the Lipi-Zbtb21, an interval similar to the mouse Dp(16)1Yey, found on rat chromosome 11. New lines were generated via an in vivo chromosomal recombination technique, which combines a transposon system (Ruf et al. 2011) and a meiotic recombination system Cre-loxP (Hérault et al. 1998). The transposon system consists of the transposase enzyme and its substrate, the transposon. The enzyme recognizes specific repeat sequences (ITR) flanked on either side of a given DNA sequence (in this case, a vector containing a specific loxP site) (Ruf et al. 2011). Once two loxP sites bound a region of interest, successive crosses bring a transgene expressing the Cre recombinase into the same individual. In this animal, the Cre enzyme recombines the sequences of the loxP sites to produce a duplication (or partial trisomy) of the region of interest (Hérault et al. 1998; Hérault et al. 2010). The new mouse models have been developed with the following segmental duplications in the Mmu16 (Figure 1). For Dp(16Samsn1-Cldn17)7Yah (Dp(16)7Yah) we duplicated the segment between Samsn1 and Cldn17. Dp(16Tiam1-Clic6))8Yah (Dp(16)8Yah) presents a duplication between Tiam1 and Clic6. Dp(16Cldn17-Brwd1))9Yah (Dp(16)9Yah) displays a duplication in the interval between Cldn17 and Brwd1. Dp(16Tmprss15-Setd4)10Yah (Dp(16)10Yah) has the segment between Tmprss15 and Setd4 duplicated, similar to Dp(16Tmprss15-Grik1)11Yah (Dp(16)11Yah), but this model presents a region duplicated until Grik1. Dp(16Tmprss15-Zbtb21)12Yah (Dp(16)12Yah) has the duplicated region from Tmprss15 to Zfp295, and Dp(16Cldn17-Vps26c(Dyrk1aKO))13Yah (Dp(16)13Yah) from Cldn17 to Vps26c, up to the sequence of Dyrk1a which is inactivated. All lines were maintained on C57BL/6J genetic background. Figure 1 : Relative position of the duplicated interval in the DS mouse models is indicated by a line. <h2>Mouse samples from the DS mouse models</h2> To generate the data, we made cohorts of mice housed under specific pathogen-free (SPF) conditions, treated in compliance with the animal welfare policies of the French Ministry of Agriculture (law 87 848). As a major genotype effect compared to sex was previously described elsewhere independently (Redhead et al. 2023), we decided to use females. For each mouse line, about ten littermates by each genotype, DS, and wild-type (WT) were collected (n = 180).  We tried to have balanced males and females in the cohorts. For example, For the Dp(16)1Yey line, six females plus five males for the dup carrier and six males plus three females for control were used.   Nevertheless, this was not the case in all the other lines, with sometimes more female individuals collected than males, because males were used to breed the lines. <h2>Micro-computed tomography scan of the skull and mandibule of mutant and control mouse lines</h2> Animals were euthanized with the standard procedure at 14 weeks old.  Briefly, the mouse heads were dissected apart from the body. A polystyrene section was interposed between the mandible and maxilla to separate the jaws. After dissection, samples were fixed in a 4% paraformaldehyde solution (PFA), washed with water, and stored in 70% ethanol. The mouse heads were scanned using the Quantum FX micro-computed tomography imaging system (Caliper Life Sciences, Hopkinton, MA, USA) to evaluate the morphology of the skull and mandible. The images obtained were delivered in DICOM format. The scan parameters used to carry out the scanning of the samples correspond to 2 scans of every sample, anterior part, and posterior part using the mode Scan Technique Fine of 2 minutes, with a field of view (FOV) of 40 mm, the voltage 90 kV, CT 160 μA, resolution pixel size 10 µm and the capture size for live mode viewing in small, live current 80kV. Imaging Processing For each sample, two scans were obtained, one from the anterior area of the skull and one from the posterior region. FIJI software was used to unite these two scans and create a single file, performing the plugin “Stitching” and saving one file in TIFF format for each individual per model (WTs and Duplication or transgenic genotype). This format can be opened using different image processors. We make the level of raw data available here in the folder TIFF of each model. Then, Stratovan Checkpoint software (Stratovan Corporation, Sacramento, USA, Version 2018.08.07. Aug 07, 2018.) was used to place the landmarks (Table S1 and S2; Figure 2) and extract the 3D coordinates for all the landmarks in all the samples. So, for each DS model, you will find an additional text file with individuals' landmark coordinates. You will find four text files for each model, 2 for the skull and 2 for the mandible, divided into WT and DS models. Morphometrics is the quantification and statistical analysis of form. Form is the combination of size and shape of a geometric object in an arbitrary orientation and location (shape is what remains of the geometry of such an object once it is standardized for size). Various approaches can be employed when conducting morphometric analysis. The method of interest in this study is the landmark-based method, which is a conventional approach that relies on phenotypic measurements such as linear distances, angles, weights, and areas. In this case, we used 61 landmarks, 39 in the skull and 22 in the mandible (Figure 2), to obtain the 3D coordinates of the structure (Hallgrimsson et al. 2015). Figure 2. Landmark positions for the skull and mandibule analysis. Based on 3D coordinates, Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA) is one of the principal tools for analyzing landmark-based morphometric data (Lele et Richtsmeier 2001). This method builds a matrix of linear distances between all possible pairs of landmarks for each specimen (Lele et Richtsmeier 1991). Morphological differences between groups can be pinpointed to specific linear distances on an object through pairwise comparisons of mean form or shape matrices, followed by bootstrapping to estimate the significance of these differences (Lele et Richtsmeier 2001). In this study, two tests were done for each group of samples, first to analyze the form of the skull and mandibles with form difference matrix (FDM) and then the shape with the shape difference matrix (SDM). In addition, to track the landmarks associated with a significant change and understand where they are located in the CF structures, “EDMA FORM or SHAPE Influence landmark analysis” was performed (Cole et Richtsmeier 1998). The purpose of this test is to search which landmarks present a Relative Euclidean distance (RED) > 1.05 or < 0.95 (outside of the confidence interval 97,8%), meaning, which landmarks show a bigger difference in linear distances between every landmark and in what direction. Another way to handle landmark-based data is using a multivariate statistical analysis of form, geometric morphometric. This method relies on the superimposition of landmark coordinate data to place individuals into a common morpho-space. The most used superimposition form is the Generalized Procrustes (GP) method and Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This method places multiple individual specimens into the same shape space by scaling, translating, and rotating the landmark coordinates around the centroid of every sample (Rohlf et Slice 1990). As an alternative, we took advantage of Stratovan Checkpoint (Stratovan Corporation, Sacramento, USA) to create population average models and perform a voxel-based analysis, where we can observe directly in 3D models the changes between populations. Finally, using the 3dMD Vultus® software, we created Procrustes average models created in Checkpoint to perform a landmarking calculation. References Birling, Marie-Christine, Laurence Schaeffer, Philippe André, Loic Lindner, Damien Maréchal, Abdel Ayadi, Tania Sorg, Guillaume Pavlovic, et Yann Hérault. 2017. « Efficient and Rapid Generation of Large Genomic Variants in Rats and Mice Using CRISMERE ». Scientific Reports 7 (1): 43331. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43331. Cole, T. M., et J. T. Richtsmeier. 1998. « A Simple Method for Visualization of Influential Landmarks When Using Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis ». American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107 (3): 273‑83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199811)107:3<273::AID-AJPA4>3.0.CO;2-1. Guedj, Fayçal, Patricia Lopes Pereira, Sonia Najas, Maria-Jose Barallobre, Caroline Chabert, Benoit Souchet, Catherine Sebrie, et al. 2012. « DYRK1A: A master regulatory protein controlling brain growth ». Neurobiology of Disease 46 (1): 190‑203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2012.01.007. Hallgrimsson, Benedikt, Christopher J. Percival, Rebecca Green, Nathan M. Young, Washington Mio, et Ralph Marcucio. 2015. « Chapter Twenty - Morphometrics, 3D Imaging, and Craniofacial Development ». In Current Topics in Developmental Biology, édité par Yang Chai, 115:561‑97. Craniofacial Development. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.09.003. Hérault, Y., M. Rassoulzadegan, F. Cuzin, et D. Duboule. 1998. « Engineering Chromosomes in Mice through Targeted Meiotic Recombination (TAMERE) ». Nature Genetics 20 (4): 381‑84. https://doi.org/10.1038/3861. Hérault, Yann, Arnaud Duchon, Damien Maréchal, Matthieu Raveau, Patricia L. Pereira, Emilie Dalloneau, et Véronique Brault. 2010. « Controlled Somatic and Germline Copy Number Variation in the Mouse Model ». Current Genomics 11 (6): 470‑80. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920210793176038. Lele, Subhash R., et Joan T. Richtsmeier. 2001. An Invariant Approach to Statistical Analysis of Shapes. CRC Press. Li, Zhongyou, Tao Yu, Masae Morishima, Annie Pao, Jeffrey LaDuca, Jeffrey Conroy, Norma Nowak, Sei-Ichi Matsui, Isao Shiraishi, et Y. Eugene Yu. 2007. « Duplication of the Entire 22.9 Mb Human Chromosome 21 Syntenic Region on Mouse Chromosome 16 Causes Cardiovascular and Gastrointestinal Abnormalities ». Human Molecular Genetics 16 (11): 1359‑66. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddm086. Redhead, Yushi, Dorota Gibbins, Eva Lana-Elola, Sheona Watson-Scales, Lisa Dobson, Matthias Krause, Karen J. Liu, Elizabeth M. C. Fisher, Jeremy B. A. Green, et Victor L. J. Tybulewicz. 2023. « Craniofacial dysmorphology in Down syndrome is caused by increased dosage of Dyrk1a and at least three other genes ». Development 150 (8): dev201077. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.201077. Rohlf, F. James, et Dennis Slice. 1990. « Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the Optimal Superimposition of Landmarks ». Systematic Biology 39 (1): 40‑59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207. Ruf, Sandra, Orsolya Symmons, Veli Vural Uslu, Dirk Dolle, Chloé Hot, Laurence Ettwiller, et François Spitz. 2011. « Large-Scale Analysis of the Regulatory Architecture of the Mouse Genome with a Transposon-Associated Sensor ». Nature Genetics 43 (4): 379‑86. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.790.   Tables <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> Landmarks Cranium </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1 </td> <td> Nasale: Intersection of nasal bones, rostral point </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 2 </td> <td> Nasion: Intersection of nasal bones, caudal point    </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 3 </td> <td> Bregma: intersection of frontal bones and parietal bones at midline </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 4 </td> <td> Intersection of parietal bones with anterior aspect of interparietal bone at midline </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 5 </td> <td> Intersection of interparietal bones with squamous portion of occipital bone at midline </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 6 </td> <td> Opisthion, midsagittal point on the posterior margin of the foramen magnum </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 7 </td> <td> Center of alveolar ridge over maxillary incisor, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 8 </td> <td> Anterior Intersection of frontal process of maxilla with frontal bone, right side. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 9 </td> <td> Anterior notch on frontal process lateral to infraorbital fissure, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 10 </td> <td> Intersection of frontal process of maxilla with frontal and lacrimal bones, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 11 </td> <td> Frontal-squasmosal intersection at temporal crest, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 12 </td> <td> Intersection of zygoma (jugal) with zygomatic process of temporal, superior aspect, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 13 </td> <td> Intersection of zygoma (jugal) with zygomatic process of temporal, inferior aspect, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 14 </td> <td> Most posteroinferior point on the superior portion of the tympanic ring, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 15 </td> <td> Center of alveolar ridge over maxillary incisor, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 16 </td> <td> Anterior Intersection of frontal process of maxilla with frontal bone, left side. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 17 </td> <td> Anterior notch on frontal process lateral to infraorbital fissure, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 18 </td> <td> Intersection of frontal process of maxilla with frontal and lacrimal bones, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 19 </td> <td> Frontal-squasmosal intersection at temporal crest, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 20 </td> <td> Intersection of zygoma (jugal) with zygomatic process of temporal, superior aspect, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 21 </td> <td> Intersection of zygoma (jugal) with zygomatic process of temporal, inferior aspect, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 22 </td> <td> Most poteroinferior point on the superior portion of the tympanic ring, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 23 </td> <td> Most anterior point of the anterior palatine foramen, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 24 </td> <td> Most posterior point of the anterior palatine foramen, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 25 </td> <td> Most infero lateral point on premaxilla-maxilla suture, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 26 </td> <td> The anterior most point on the central ant/post axis of the right molar alveolus </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 27 </td> <td> Intersection of zygomatic process of maxilla with zygoma (jugal), inferior surface, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 28 </td> <td> Lateral intersection of maxilla and palatine bone posterior to the third molar, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 29 </td> <td> Joining of squasmosal body to zygomatic process of squasmosal, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 30 </td> <td> Most inferior aspect of posterior tip of medial pterygoid process, right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 31 </td> <td> Most anterior point of the anterior palatine foramen, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 32 </td> <td> Most posterior point of the anterior palatine foramen, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 33 </td> <td> Most infero lateral point on premaxilla-maxilla suture, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 34 </td> <td> The anterio most point on the central ant/post axis of the left molar alveolus </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 35 </td> <td> Intersection of zygomatic process of maxilla with zygoma (jugal), inferior surface, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 36 </td> <td> Lateral intersection of maxilla and palatine bone posterior to the third molar, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 37 </td> <td> Joining of squasmosal body to zygomatic process of squasmosal, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 38 </td> <td> Most inferior aspect of posterior tip of medial pterygoid process, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 39 </td> <td> Basion, midsagittal point on the anterior margin of the foramen magnum </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>  Table S1: 39 Skull Landmarks.   <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> Landmarks Mandible </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1 </td> <td> Apex of coronoid process, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 2 </td> <td> Intersection of molar alveolar rim and base of coronoid process, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 3 </td> <td> Anterior edge of alveolar process where first molar hits alveolus at the midline, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 4 </td> <td> Superior-most point on incisor alveolar rim at midline (at bone-tooth junctions), Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 5 </td> <td> Inferior-most point on incisor alveolar rim at midline (at bone-tooth junction), Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 6 </td> <td> Inferior point on mandibular symphysis, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 7 </td> <td> Anterior edge of the coalescence of curve of masseteric ridge with post-symphyseal rugged area, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 8 </td> <td> Tip of mandibular angle, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 9 </td> <td> Posterior midline point on condyle, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 10 </td> <td> Anterior midline point on condyle, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 11 </td> <td> Anterior edge of the mental foramen, Right side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 12 </td> <td> Apex of the coronoid process, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 13 </td> <td> Intersection of molar alveolar rim and base of coronoid process, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 14 </td> <td> Anterior edge of alveolar process where first molar hits alveolus at the midline, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 15 </td> <td> Superior-most point on incisor alveolar rim at midline (at bone-tooth junctions), left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 16 </td> <td> Inferior-most point on incisor alveolar rim at midline (at bone-tooth junction), left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 17 </td> <td> Inferior point on mandibular symphysis, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 18 </td> <td> Anterior edge of the coalescence of curve of masseteric ridge with post-symphyseal rugged area, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 19 </td> <td> Tip of mandibular angle, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 20 </td> <td> Posterior midline point on condyle, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 21 </td> <td> Anterior midline point on condyle, left side </td> </tr> <tr> <td> 22 </td> <td> Anterior edge of the mental foramen, left side </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>  Table S2: 22 mandible Landmarks.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2024View details →

dryad36/100

Data from: Hominin fossils from Kromdraai and Drimolen inform Paranthropus robustus craniofacial ontogeny

Growth and development provide critical information about the evolutionary history of early hominin adult morphology. Using fossils from the southern African site of Kromdraai, we herein present the digital models of three juvenile specimens that are especially valuable because they shed light on how the distinct adult craniofacial characteristics of Paranthropus robustus developed. We find significant differences in the development of P. robustus and Australopithecus africanus. Additionally, some features of the P. robustus specimens suggest that the iconic SK 54 juvenile calvaria from the southern African site of Swartkrans is more likely an early Homo specimen rather than Paranthropus. The results of this study shed light on the evolutionary relationships between different early hominin species and could help to identify the closest relative to the Paranthropus/Homo clade.

opencc-zeroMay 2023View details →

ClinicalTrials.gov36/100

Tranexamic Acid for Craniofacial Surgery

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00722436. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

ClinicalTrials.gov36/100

Structural Fat Grafting for Craniofacial Trauma: Repeat Fat Grafting Injection-5 Subject Cohort

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01822301. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 44.

controlledIPD-YESFeb 2026View details →

ClinicalTrials.gov36/100

Use of Concentrated Endogenous Autologous Adipose Stromal Cells in Fat Grafts for Craniofacial Trauma

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01633892. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 7.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →

ClinicalTrials.gov36/100

The Use of Exosomes In Craniofacial Neuralgia

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04202783. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 13.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

ClinicalTrials.gov36/100

The Impact of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH) on Craniofacial Osseous Regeneration in Bone

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01279187. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →

dryad36/100