Literature DB >> 21208076

Accuracy and precision of a 3D anthropometric facial analysis with and without landmark labeling before image acquisition.

Noyan Aynechi1, Brent E Larson, Vladimir Leon-Salazar, Soraya Beiraghi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of landmark labeling on the accuracy and precision of an indirect facial anthropometric technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen standard linear craniofacial measurements were obtained from 10 adults using the 3dMDface system, with landmarks labeled (Labeled_3D) and without landmarks labeled (Unlabeled_3D) before image acquisition, and these were compared with direct anthropometry (Caliper). Images were acquired twice in two different sessions 1 week apart (T1 and T2). Accuracy and precision were determined by comparing mean measurement values and absolute differences between the three methods.
RESULTS: Mean measurements derived from three-dimensional (3D) images and direct anthropologic measurements were mostly similar. However, statistically significant differences (P < .01) were noted for seven measurements in Labeled_3D and six measurements in Unlabeled_3D. The magnitudes of these differences were clinically insignificant (<2 mm). In terms of precision, results demonstrated good reproducibility for both methods, with a tendency toward more precise values in Labeled_3D, when compared with the other two techniques (P < .05). We found that Labeled_3D provided the most precise values, Unlabeled_3D produced less precise measurements, and Caliper was the least capable of generating precise values.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, soft tissue facial measurement with the 3dMDface system demonstrated similar accuracy and precision with traditional anthropometry, regardless of landmarking before image acquisition. Larger disagreements were found regarding measurements involving ears and soft tissue landmarks without distinct edges. The 3dMDface system demonstrated a high level of precision, especially when facial landmarks were labeled.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21208076      PMCID: PMC8925260          DOI: 10.2319/041810-210.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  23 in total

1.  Differences between direct (anthropometric) and indirect (cephalometric) measurements of the skull.

Authors:  Leslie G Farkas; Bryan D Tompson; Marko J Katic; Christopher R Forrest
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.046

2.  Three-dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method.

Authors:  Mohammad Y Hajeer; Ashraf F Ayoub; Declan T Millett; Mitchum Bock; J Paul Siebert
Journal:  Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg       Date:  2002

3.  Development of a new three-dimensional cranial imaging system.

Authors:  Timothy R Littlefield; Kevin M Kelly; Jennifer C Cherney; Stephen P Beals; Jeanne K Pomatto
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 1.046

4.  Reproducibility of soft tissue landmarks on three-dimensional facial scans.

Authors:  Jamie R Gwilliam; Susan J Cunningham; Tim Hutton
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Comparison of three methods of facial measurement.

Authors:  H Ghoddousi; R Edler; P Haers; D Wertheim; D Greenhill
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 2.789

Review 6.  Objective techniques for craniofacial assessment: what are the choices?

Authors:  J E Allanson
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1997-05-02

Review 7.  Facial morphology as determined by anthropometry: keeping it simple.

Authors:  R E Ward
Journal:  J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol       Date:  1989

8.  Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations.

Authors:  V F Ferrario; C Sforza; A Miani; G Tartaglia
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Brief communication: measurement size, precision, and reliability in craniofacial anthropometry: bigger is better.

Authors:  P L Jamison; R E Ward
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.868

10.  Soft tissue images from cephalograms compared with those from a 3D surface acquisition system.

Authors:  Angela K Incrapera; Chung How Kau; Jeryl D English; Kathleen McGrory; David M Sarver
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  21 in total

1.  Three-dimensional analysis of lip changes in response to simulated maxillary incisor advancement.

Authors:  Joanne Au; Li Mei; Florence Bennani; Austin Kang; Mauro Farella
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Three-dimensional human facial morphologies as robust aging markers.

Authors:  Weiyang Chen; Wei Qian; Gang Wu; Weizhong Chen; Bo Xian; Xingwei Chen; Yaqiang Cao; Christopher D Green; Fanghong Zhao; Kun Tang; Jing-Dong J Han
Journal:  Cell Res       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 25.617

Review 3.  Large-scale objective phenotyping of 3D facial morphology.

Authors:  Peter Hammond; Michael Suttie
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  Assessment of facial soft-tissue profiles based on lateral photographs versus three-dimensional face scans.

Authors:  Martin Fink; Ursula Hirschfelder; Veronika Hirschinger; Matthias Schmid; Caroline Spitzl; Andreas Detterbeck; Elisabeth Hofmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Metric precision via soft-tissue landmarks in three-dimensional structured-light scans of human faces.

Authors:  M Fink; J Medelnik; K Strobel; U Hirschfelder; E Hofmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-03-02       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  Three-dimensional evaluation of changes in lip position from before to after orthodontic appliance removal.

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

7.  Evaluation of facial asymmetry by stereophotogrammetry in individuals with unilateral maxillary impacted canine.

Authors:  Ahmet Oğuz Şahan; Burçin Akan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 1.938

8.  Three-dimensional evaluation of the relationship between jaw divergence and facial soft tissue dimensions.

Authors:  Roberto Rongo; Joseph Saswat Antoun; Yi Xin Lim; George Dias; Rosa Valletta; Mauro Farella
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Accuracy of three-dimensional photogrammetry and cone beam computed tomography based on linear measurements in patients with facial deformities.

Authors:  Zhenqi Zhao; Lizhe Xie; Dan Cao; Iman Izadikhah; Pengcheng Gao; Yang Zhao; Bin Yan
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 2.419

10.  Updating Standards of Facial Growth in Romanian Children and Adolescents Using the Anthropometric Method-A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Emilia Ogodescu; Malina Popa; Magda Luca; Andreea Igna; Mariana Miron; Krisztina Martha; Anca Tudor; Carmen Todea
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.