Abstract
Purpose: To test for difference in accuracy of 3D facial integument measurements of
three indirect facial measurement techniques compared to measuring integument facial
features directly. Materials & Methods: Four measurement methods were used to measure
25 patients (15 females and 10 males): 1) direct anthropometric facial (direct), 2)
volume wrapping 2D images on CBCT (2D wrap), 3) volume wrapping 3D facial scan using
Artec Eva on CBCT (3D wrap), and 4) direct 3D face scan (3D scan). Statistical differences
were determined at the 99% probability level and clinical significance was >0.5 mm.
Results: Direct technique measurements were significantly smaller than the other three
techniques in 7 of 26 (26.8%) measurements. Differences between 3 of 7 measurements
exceeded 0.5 mm and were deemed clinically significant, i.e. upper face height (N-Sto),
lower face height (Sn-Gn) and nasal tip projection (Sn-Prn). The remaining 23 of 26
direct measurements could be substituted by 2D wrap, 3D wrap or 3D scan measurement
techniques. Compared to the direct technique, 2D volume wrap on CBCT values were closer
than the values obtained from the 3D volume wrap and 3D CBCT techniques. Conclusions:
Compared to the “gold standard” direct measurements, the other three techniques in
23 of 26 face and ear measurements (88.5%) could be substituted one for the other,
and demonstrated a fairly high level of precision.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Seminars in OrthodonticsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images.Am J Med Genet. 2005; 138A: 247-253
- Towards building a photo-realistic virtual human face for craniomaxillofacial diagnosis and treatment planning.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 36: 423-428
- Contemporary Orthodontics.5th edition. Elsevier Mosby, St. Louis, Missouri, USA2013: 63043
- Completing the 3-dimensional picture.Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008; 133: 612-620
- Integrated three-dimensional craniofacial mapping at the Craniofacial Research Instrumentation Laboratory - University of the Pacific.Semin Orthod. 2001; 7: 258-265
- Three-dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: The clinical application of a new method.Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg. 2002; 17: 318-330
- Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: Comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry.J Craniofac Surg. 2006; 17: 477-483
- Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery.Int J Med Robot Comp Assisted Surg. 2007; 3: 97-110
- Three-dimensional Computer Vision.MIT Press, London1993: 165-243
- Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008; 45: 232-239
- Application of 3D facial models obtained from CBCT volume wrapping.J Clin Orthod. 2015; 49: 641-646
- Accuracy and precision of integumental linear dimensions in a three-dimensional facial imaging system.Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45: 105-112
- Accuracy and precision of a 3D anthropometric facial analysis with and without landmark labeling before image acquisition.Angle Orthod. 2011; 81: 245-252
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 10, 2018
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
