INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the use of 3-dimensional facial averages for determining morphologic differences from various population groups. METHODS: We recruited 473 subjects from 5 populations. Three-dimensional images of the subjects were obtained in a reproducible and controlled environment with a commercially available stereo-photogrammetric camera capture system. Minolta VI-900 (Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) and 3dMDface (3dMD LLC, Atlanta, Ga) systems were used. Each image 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 performed until average composite faces of 1 man and 1 woman were achieved for each subgroup. These average facial composites were superimposed based on a previously validated superimposition method, and the facial differences were quantified. RESULTS: Distinct facial differences were observed among the groups. The linear differences between surface shells ranged from 0.37 to 1.00 mm for the male groups. The linear differences ranged from 0.28 and 0.87 mm for the women. The color histograms showed that the similarities in facial shells between the subgroups by sex ranged from 26.70% to 70.39% for men and 36.09% to 79.83% for women. The average linear distance from the signed color histograms for the male subgroups ranged from -6.30 to 4.44 mm. The female subgroups ranged from -6.32 to 4.25 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Average faces can be efficiently and effectively created from a sample of 3-dimensional faces. Average faces can be used to compare differences in facial morphologies for various populations and sexes. Facial morphologic differences were greatest when totally different ethnic variations were compared. Facial morphologic similarities were present in comparable groups, but there were large variations in concentrated areas of the face. Copyright 2010 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 for determining morphologic differences from various population groups. METHODS: We recruited 473 subjects from 5 populations. Three-dimensional images of the subjects were obtained in a reproducible and controlled environment with a commercially available stereo-photogrammetric camera capture system. Minolta VI-900 (Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) and 3dMDface (3dMD LLC, Atlanta, Ga) systems were used. Each image 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 performed until average composite faces of 1 man and 1 woman were achieved for each subgroup. These average facial composites were superimposed based on a previously validated superimposition method, and the facial differences were quantified. RESULTS: Distinct facial differences were observed among the groups. The linear differences between surface shells ranged from 0.37 to 1.00 mm for the male groups. The linear differences ranged from 0.28 and 0.87 mm for the women. The color histograms showed that the similarities in facial shells between the subgroups by sex ranged from 26.70% to 70.39% for men and 36.09% to 79.83% for women. The average linear distance from the signed color histograms for the male subgroups ranged from -6.30 to 4.44 mm. The female subgroups ranged from -6.32 to 4.25 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Average faces can be efficiently and effectively created from a sample of 3-dimensional faces. Average faces can be used to compare differences in facial morphologies for various populations and sexes. Facial morphologic differences were greatest when totally different ethnic variations were compared. Facial morphologic similarities were present in comparable groups, but there were large variations in concentrated areas of the face. Copyright 2010 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: Harry Hochheiser; Bruce J Aronow; Kristin Artinger; Terri H Beaty; James F Brinkley; Yang Chai; David Clouthier; Michael L Cunningham; Michael Dixon; Leah Rae Donahue; Scott E Fraser; Benedikt Hallgrimsson; Junichi Iwata; Ophir Klein; Mary L Marazita; Jeffrey C Murray; Stephen Murray; Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena; John Postlethwait; Steven Potter; Linda Shapiro; Richard Spritz; Axel Visel; Seth M Weinberg; Paul A Trainor Journal: Dev Biol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.582
Authors: Lavinia Paternoster; Alexei I Zhurov; Arshed M Toma; John P Kemp; Beate St Pourcain; Nicholas J Timpson; George McMahon; Wendy McArdle; Susan M Ring; George Davey Smith; Stephen Richmond; David M Evans Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Krishna Chinthapalli; Emanuele Bartolini; Jan Novy; Michael Suttie; Carla Marini; Melania Falchi; Zoe Fox; Lisa M S Clayton; Josemir W Sander; Renzo Guerrini; Chantal Depondt; Raoul Hennekam; Peter Hammond; Sanjay M Sisodiya Journal: Brain Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 13.501
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
Authors: M L Menéndez López-Mateos; J Carreño-Carreño; J C Palma; J A Alarcón; C Menéndez López-Mateos; M Menéndez-Núñez Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.757
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