koski1968 BAUME

the operations may dust as well b(: ,Iuc~ to t t~;~um;l.l~ I1 is ills0 cYJ~llCY~iVillblP t Il;tt till’
nasal Sf?~1tUlll is a central SUpport fol’ tllt& ll])[K’? f;lc+al ill'f'il. iUltl ils loss II~SIlLtS
in a predictable co1 lapse in thtl ar(‘i~.
An early submucous resection of tht, rlasal septum clot3 not s(‘om to ha\,(h an>
adverse effect. on the devclopmcnt of th(l middle fa(~.“; A twcnt wpnrt (‘oneerning
an arrhinencephalic Cl-month-old child (with the septum missing) states
that the resorption and apposition ~I’OWSWS in the hn,v I)aliit,c WPIY’ occurring
normally and that the height of the nppcr face was not greatly aR’ccted, although
the sagittal development of tht nlitldle third of the fact was rt~tardctl.“”
This finding seems t,o indicate that the nasal cartilaginous scptnm may be im
portant for the anteroposterior growth 0-l’ the upper face, prcsuma.blp hccanse of
the endochondral growth process occurring at its posterior horder! but that it
is not an active contributor to the verticaal dcvclopment of the fact.
On the basis of the present evidence, wc may conclude that the septo-ethmoidal
junction possibly acts as a growth center during postnatal life, although
direct evidence of this is lacking and may. indeed, be difficult, to obtain.
CONDYLAR
CARTILAGE
The cartilage in the condyle of the mandible has probably been subject to
more studies and discussions than any other part of the cra,niofacial skeleton,
from the stand-point of growth.
Most orthodontic texts seem to accept the opinion that “growt,h at the
condyle moves the mandibular body forward and downward and thus opens the
space below the cranial base int,o which mandibular and maxillary alveolar
processes grow and teeth erupt,” and the eondylar growth is, therefore, considered
“indispensable for the normal vertical growth of the face.“‘” It has also
been claimed that the growth of t,he condylar cartilage is responsible for the
anteroposterior growth of the mandible,” and the general feeling seems to br
that we are here dealing with the most important growth center of the lower
jaw.‘3
There have been a few claims to the contrary. Scott7” wa.s of the opinion that
the growth of the condylar cartilage enables the condylr “to grow upwards and
backwards so as to maintain the contact at the temporomandibular joint as the
mandible is carried downwards and forwards by the growth of the upper facial
skeleton.” He further compared the condyle to the end of the clavicle, maintaining
that they are similar in structure, and pointing out that it would not
be correct to say that the clavicles are pushing the sternum and scapulas apart.
During the past few years, MOE@, X+ 5x has been advocating the same view as far
as the role of condylar growth is concerned, but he maintains that the governing
agent is the so-called “functional matrix.”
The structure of this cartilage has been studied and explained by many authors.7,
12, =, 85y se3 9o Apparently, however, the findings of researchers have often
been misinterpreted by readers who have not had first-hand knowledge of the
subject, and a few remarks seem to be called for after all.
This cartilage is a latecomer, a secondary cartilage, and not a part of the
Meckel’s cartilage that acts as the model for the early development of the man-