Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg.
2017 Aug;39(8):23. 10.1186/s40902-017-0123-3.
Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry
- Affiliations
-
- 1Kingston and St George's Hospitals and Medical School, London, UK. Farhad.Naini@yahoo.co.uk
- 2King's College London Dental Institute, London, UK.
- 3Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
- 4Department of Reconstructive and Diagnostic Surgical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
- 5King's College London Dental Institute, London, UK.
- 6Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University, London, UK.
- KMID: 2416226
- DOI: http://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0123-3
Abstract
- BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to validate a new three-dimensional craniofacial stereophotogrammetry imaging system (3dMDface) through comparison with manual facial surface anthropometry. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements using anthropometry vs. the 3dMDface system.
METHODS
Facial images using the new 3dMDface system were taken from six randomly selected subjects, sitting in natural head position, on six separate occasions each 1 week apart, repeated twice at each sitting. Exclusion criteria were excess facial hair, facial piercings and undergoing current dentofacial treatment. 3dMDvultus software allowed facial landmarks to be marked and measurements recorded. The same measurements were taken using manual anthropometry, using soluble eyeliner to pinpoint landmarks, and sliding and spreading callipers and measuring tape to measure distances. The setting for the investigation was a dental teaching hospital and regional (secondary and tertiary care) cleft centre. The main outcome measure was comparison of the craniofacial measurements using the two aforementioned techniques.
RESULTS
The results showed good agreement between craniofacial measurements using the 3dMDface system compared with manual anthropometry. For all measurements, except chin height and labial fissure width, there was a greater variability with the manual method compared to 3D assessment. Overall, there was a significantly greater variability in manual compared with 3D assessments (p < 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
The 3dMDface system is validated for craniofacial measurements.
- Full Text Links
-
- Actions
-
Cited
- CITED
-
- Close
- Share
-
- Similar articles
-
- Manikin Model Study on Reproducibility and Accuracy of Maxillofacial Measurements Determined by Stereocamera: Comparative Study of Direct Anthropometry, Digitizer and Stereophotogrammetery
- Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging is an Effective Tool for Measuring Breast Volume: A Validation Study
- Normative anthropometry and proportions of the Kenyan-African face and comparative anthropometry in relation to African Americans and North American Whites
- Comparison of the 3D Digital Photogrammetry and Direct Anthropometry in Unilateral Cleft Lip Patients
- Prenatal ultrasonography of craniofacial abnormalities
