Anthropometric accuracy of three-dimensional average faces compared to conventional facial measurements.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 06 2021
10 06 2021
Historique:
received:
13
01
2021
accepted:
19
05
2021
entrez:
11
6
2021
pubmed:
12
6
2021
medline:
12
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of average faces constructed by different methods. Original three-dimensional facial images of 26 adults in Chinese ethnicity were imported into Di3DView and MorphAnalyser for image processing. Six average faces (Ave_D15, Ave_D24, Ave_MG15, Ave_MG24, Ave_MO15, Ave_MO24) were constructed using "surface-based registration" method with different number of landmarks and template meshes. Topographic analysis was performed, and the accuracy of six average faces was assessed by linear and angular parameters in correspondence with arithmetic means calculated from individual original images. Among the six average faces constructed by the two systems, Ave_MG15 had the highest accuracy in comparison with the conventional method, while Ave_D15 had the least accuracy. Other average faces were comparable regarding the number of discrepant parameters with clinical significance. However, marginal and non-registered areas were the most inaccurate regions using Di3DView. For MorphAnalyser, the type of template mesh had an effect on the accuracy of the final 3D average face, but additional landmarks did not improve the accuracy. This study highlights the importance of validating software packages and determining the degree of accuracy, as well as the variables which may affect the result.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34112847
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91579-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-91579-4
pmc: PMC8192579
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12254Références
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 19;11(4):e0152381
pubmed: 27093637
J Craniofac Surg. 2005 Jul;16(4):615-46
pubmed: 16077306
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Jun;35(3):295-304
pubmed: 21531786
Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Dec;59(6):692-8
pubmed: 18046155
Eur J Orthod. 2014 Aug;36(4):365-72
pubmed: 23172581
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;54(7):812-7
pubmed: 27325452
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Apr;137(4 Suppl):S56.e1-9; discussion S56-7
pubmed: 20381762
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Mar;41(3):324-30
pubmed: 22103995
Forensic Sci Int. 2011 Apr 15;207(1-3):127-34
pubmed: 20951517
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 06;10(8):e0134525
pubmed: 26247212
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008 Jan;46(1):27-32
pubmed: 17561318
PLoS One. 2019 May 20;14(5):e0217267
pubmed: 31107914
J Craniofac Surg. 2016 Jan;27(1):e71-5
pubmed: 26703056
Eur J Dent. 2020 Feb;14(1):100-106
pubmed: 32168537
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jul;44(7):914-20
pubmed: 25752242
J Craniofac Surg. 2006 May;17(3):477-83
pubmed: 16770184
Surgeon. 2019 Feb;17(1):19-27
pubmed: 29880431
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Sep;150(3):398
pubmed: 27585764
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jul;42(7):801-6
pubmed: 23465803
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Aug;144(2):218-28
pubmed: 23910203
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016 Nov;53(6):e185-e197
pubmed: 26492185
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2019 Jul;302(7):1144-1153
pubmed: 30365240