koski1968 BAUME

Volume 54
Number 8
Cranial growth centers 579
Fig. 15. The outlines of the three mandibles shown in Fig. 14 superimposed on the condyle.
Compare the apparent growth direction as viewed from the temporomandibular joint with the
actual one shown in Fig. 14. The discrepancy between the findings cannot be explained by the
concept of the eondylar cartilage having a pushing and directing force,
point toward its subordinate role as a site of growth, not as a growth center, in
the growth of the mandible.
CONCLUSIONS
The foregoing discussion of the available information concerning the growth
of the craniofaeial skeleton has led to the conclusion that most of the areas
which have been labeled growth centers in the past either do not qualify as such
or have not been studied sufficiently for the claim to be proved beyond doubt.
If these sutures and cartilages do, indeed, lack independent growth-promoting
potential, what are the factors responsible for the craniofacial skeleton?
Several students of craniofacial growth have proposed essentially similar
concepts regarding it. Van der Klaauw3g viewed the skull as composed of more
than thirty relatively independent functional units, each governed by its own
functional growth director, as it were. Scott16 divided the craniofacial skeleton
into eight different regions, each having its own growth pattern, related to the
different organs they house or support. The latest theory is presented by Mos+~,~~* s8
who maintains that the growth of the craniofacial skeleton is under the influence
of the “functional matrix,” by which he means all the soft tissues (even empty
spaces) within which the bony structures are embedded.