Literature DB >> 31053285

3D stereophotogrammetry versus traditional craniofacial anthropometry: Comparing measurements from the 3D facial norms database to Farkas's North American norms.

Seth M Weinberg1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Datasets of soft-tissue craniofacial anthropometric norms collected with the use of different methods are available, but there is little understanding of how the measurements compare. Here we compare a set of standard facial measurements between 2 large datasets: the 3D Facial Norms (3DFN) dataset collected with the use of 3D stereophotogrammetry (n = 2454), and the Farkas craniofacial norms collected with the use of direct anthropometry (n = 2326).
METHODS: A common set of 24 craniofacial linear distances were compared by computing standardized effect sizes (Cohen d) for each measurement to describe the overall direction and magnitude of the difference between the 2 datasets.
RESULTS: Variables with higher mean d values (suggesting greater discrepancy across datasets) included measurements involving the ear landmark tragion, the landmark nasion, the width of nasolabial structures, the vermilion portion of the lips, and palpebral fissure length. Variables with lower mean d values included smaller midline measurements involving the lips and lower face and horizontal distance measures between the eyes. Eight measurements showed a significant negative correlation (P < 0.05) between Cohen d and age, indicating greater similarity across the 2 datasets as age increased.
CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable differences between the 3DFN and Farkas norms. In addition to the measurement methods, other factors accounting for discrepancies may include secular trends in craniofacial morphology or differences in ethnic composition.
Copyright © 2019 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31053285      PMCID: PMC6571015          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.06.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  26 in total

1.  Measures of Effect Size for Comparative Studies: Applications, Interpretations, and Limitations.

Authors: 
Journal:  Contemp Educ Psychol       Date:  2000-07

2.  Secular change in craniofacial morphology.

Authors:  R.L. Jantz; Lee Meadows Jantz
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.937

3.  Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system.

Authors:  Seth M Weinberg; Nicole M Scott; Katherine Neiswanger; Carla A Brandon; Mary L Marazita
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2004-09

4.  Nasal dimensions in normal subjects: conventional anthropometry versus computerized anthropometry.

Authors:  Chiarella Sforza; Claudia Dellavia; Anna Colombo; Graziano Serrao; Virgilio F Ferrario
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.802

Review 5.  Epidemiologic aspects of overweight and obesity in the United States.

Authors:  Katherine M Flegal
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2005-10-19

6.  Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry.

Authors:  Seth M Weinberg; Sybill Naidoo; Daniel P Govier; Rick A Martin; Alex A Kane; Mary L Marazita
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  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

8.  Quantitative approach to identifying abnormal variation in the human face exemplified by a study of 278 individuals with five craniofacial syndromes.

Authors:  R E Ward; P L Jamison; J E Allanson
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2000-03-06

9.  The use of facial anthropometrics in aesthetic assessment.

Authors:  R Edler; M Abd Rahim; D Wertheim; D Greenhill
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2010-01

10.  Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology in normal Japanese children as control data for cleft surgery.

Authors:  Tomohiro Yamada; Yoshihide Mori; Katsuhiro Minami; Katsuaki Mishima; Yuichi Tsukamoto
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2002-09
View more
  4 in total

1.  Integration of digital maxillary dental casts with 3D facial images in orthodontic patients.

Authors:  Zhuoxing Xiao; Zijin Liu; Yan Gu
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Age-related changes of the periocular morphology: a two- and three-dimensional anthropometry study in Caucasians.

Authors:  Jinhua Liu; Alexander C Rokohl; Honglei Liu; Wanlin Fan; Senmao Li; Xiaoyi Hou; Sitong Ju; Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 3.535

3.  Expanding the Classic Facial Canons: Quantifying Intercanthal Distance in a Diverse Patient Population.

Authors:  Gabriel Bouhadana; Jordan Gornitsky; Eli Saleh; Nadia Oliveira Trabelsi; Daniel E Borsuk
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-04-22

4.  A Cross-Sectional Study to Understand 3D Facial Differences in a Population of African Americans and Caucasians.

Authors:  Chung H Kau; Jue Wang; Matthew Davis
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2019-12-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.