INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the use of 3-dimensional facial averages in determining facial morphologic differences in 2 white population groups. METHODS: Three-dimensional images were obtained in a reproducible and controlled environment from a commercially available stereo-photogrammetric camera capture system. The 3dMDface system (3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) photographed 200 subjects from 2 population groups (Budapest, Hungary, and Houston, Tex); each group included 50 men and 50 women, aged 18 to 30 years. Each face was obtained as a facial mesh and orientated along a triangulated axis. All faces were overlaid, one on top of the other, and a complex mathematical algorithm was used until an average composite face of 1 man and 1 woman was obtained for each subgroup (Hungarian men, Hungarian women, Texas men, and Texas women). These average facial composites were superimposed (men and women) based on a previously validated superimposition method, and the facial differences were quantified. RESULTS: Distinct facial differences were observed between the population groups. These differences could be seen in the nasal, malar, lips, and lower facial regions. In general, the mean facial differences were 0.55 +/- 0.60 mm between the Hungarian and Texas women, and 0.44 +/- 0.42 mm between the Hungarian and Texas men. The ranges of differences were -2.02 to 3.77 and -2.05 to 1.94 mm for the female and male pairings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional facial averages representing the facial soft-tissue morphology of adults can be used to assess diagnostic and treatment regimens for patients by population. Each population is different with respect to their soft-tissue structures, and traditional soft-tissue normative data (eg, white norms) should be altered and used for specific groups. American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the use of 3-dimensional facial averages in determining facial morphologic differences in 2 white population groups. METHODS: Three-dimensional images were obtained in a reproducible and controlled environment from a commercially available stereo-photogrammetric camera capture system. The 3dMDface system (3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) photographed 200 subjects from 2 population groups (Budapest, Hungary, and Houston, Tex); each group included 50 men and 50 women, aged 18 to 30 years. Each face was obtained as a facial mesh and orientated along a triangulated axis. All faces were overlaid, one on top of the other, and a complex mathematical algorithm was used until an average composite face of 1 man and 1 woman was obtained for each subgroup (Hungarian men, Hungarian women, Texas men, and Texas women). These average facial composites were superimposed (men and women) based on a previously validated superimposition method, and the facial differences were quantified. RESULTS: Distinct facial differences were observed between the population groups. These differences could be seen in the nasal, malar, lips, and lower facial regions. In general, the mean facial differences were 0.55 +/- 0.60 mm between the Hungarian and Texas women, and 0.44 +/- 0.42 mm between the Hungarian and Texas men. The ranges of differences were -2.02 to 3.77 and -2.05 to 1.94 mm for the female and male pairings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional facial averages representing the facial soft-tissue morphology of adults can be used to assess diagnostic and treatment regimens for patients by population. Each population is different with respect to their soft-tissue structures, and traditional soft-tissue normative data (eg, white norms) should be altered and used for specific groups. American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Saskia M J Hopman; Johannes H M Merks; Michael Suttie; Raoul C M Hennekam; Peter Hammond Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Lindsey Eidson; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Leonardo Koerich de Paula; H Garland Hershey; Gregory Welch; P Emile Rossouw Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Seth M Weinberg; Zachary D Raffensperger; Matthew J Kesterke; Carrie L Heike; Michael L Cunningham; Jacqueline T Hecht; Chung How Kau; Jeffrey C Murray; George L Wehby; Lina M Moreno; Mary L Marazita Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2015-10-22
Authors: Siti Adibah Othman; Lynnora Patrick Majawit; Wan Nurazreena Wan Hassan; Mang Chek Wey; Roziana Mohd Razi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240