A M Toma1, A Zhurov, R Playle, S Richmond. 1. Department of Applied Clinical Research & Public Health (Orthodontic Department), Dental School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK. TomaA@cardiff.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optical surface scanning accurately records the three-dimension (3D) shape of the face non-invasively. Many software programs have been developed to process and analyze the 3D data, enabling the clinicians to create average templates for groups of subjects to provide a comparison of facial shape. OBJECTIVE: Differences in facial morphology of males and females were identified using a laser scan imaging technology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study was undertaken on 380 British-Caucasian children aged 15 and a half year old, recruited from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). 3D facial images were obtained for each individual using two high resolution Konica/Minolta laser scanners. The scan quality was assessed and any unsuitable scans were excluded from the study. Average facial templates were created for males and females, and a registration technique was used to superimpose the facial shells of males and females so that facial differences can be quantified. RESULTS: Thirty unsuitable scans were excluded from the study. The final sample consisted of 350 subjects (166 females, 184 males). Females tend to have more prominent eyes and cheeks in relation to males with a maximum difference of 2.4 mm. Males tend to have more prominent noses and mouths with a maximum difference of 2.7 mm. About 31% of the facial shells match exactly (no difference), mainly in the forehead and chin regions of the face. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in facial morphology can be accurately quantified and visualized using 3D imaging technology. This method of facial assessment can be recommended and applied for future research studies to assess facial soft tissue changes because of growth or healthcare intervention.
BACKGROUND: Optical surface scanning accurately records the three-dimension (3D) shape of the face non-invasively. Many software programs have been developed to process and analyze the 3D data, enabling the clinicians to create average templates for groups of subjects to provide a comparison of facial shape. OBJECTIVE: Differences in facial morphology of males and females were identified using a laser scan imaging technology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study was undertaken on 380 British-Caucasian children aged 15 and a half year old, recruited from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). 3D facial images were obtained for each individual using two high resolution Konica/Minolta laser scanners. The scan quality was assessed and any unsuitable scans were excluded from the study. Average facial templates were created for males and females, and a registration technique was used to superimpose the facial shells of males and females so that facial differences can be quantified. RESULTS: Thirty unsuitable scans were excluded from the study. The final sample consisted of 350 subjects (166 females, 184 males). Females tend to have more prominent eyes and cheeks in relation to males with a maximum difference of 2.4 mm. Males tend to have more prominent noses and mouths with a maximum difference of 2.7 mm. About 31% of the facial shells match exactly (no difference), mainly in the forehead and chin regions of the face. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in facial morphology can be accurately quantified and visualized using 3D imaging technology. This method of facial assessment can be recommended and applied for future research studies to assess facial soft tissue changes because of growth or healthcare intervention.
Authors: Sander Brons; Machteld E van Beusichem; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jos Draaisma; Stefaan J Bergé; Thomas J Maal; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ala Al Ali; Stephen Richmond; Hashmat Popat; Arshed M Toma; Rebecca Playle; Timothy Pickles; Alexei I Zhurov; David Marshall; Paul L Rosin; John Henderson Journal: Eur J Orthod Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Rebecca Ort; Philipp Metzler; Astrid L Kruse; Felix Matthews; Wolfgang Zemann; Klaus W Grätz; Heinz-Theo Luebbers Journal: Plast Surg Int Date: 2012-08-05
Authors: Sander Brons; Machteld E van Beusichem; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jos M Draaisma; Stefaan J Bergé; Jan G Schols; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicholas Pound; David W Lawson; Arshed M Toma; Stephen Richmond; Alexei I Zhurov; Ian S Penton-Voak Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Man Yan Cheung; Anas Almukhtar; Andrew Keeling; Tai-Chiu Hsung; Xiangyang Ju; James McDonald; Ashraf Ayoub; Balvinder Singh Khambay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240