American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original article3D stereophotogrammetry versus traditional craniofacial anthropometry: Comparing measurements from the 3D facial norms database to Farkas's North American norms
Section snippets
Material and methods
The 3DFN dataset is composed of 2454 unrelated individuals of self-reported European ancestry: 952 male and 1502 female. These participants were recruited from 2010 to 2013 from the general population at 4 US sites: Pittsburgh, Pa; Seattle, Wash; Houston, Texas; and Iowa City, Iowa. The full dataset is composed of male and female subjects ranging in age from 3 to 40 years. As described in detail elsewhere,9 all of the participants were screened for any personal or family history of medical
Results
The observed mean d values varied considerably across the 24 measurements and are shown as a forest plot in Figure 2. For half of the measurements, the mean d value was positive (meaning the measurement was larger in 3DFN than in Farkas). Variables with large and moderate d values—suggesting greater discrepancy across datasets—included those measurements involving the ear landmark tragion (eg, measures of facial depth), the landmark nasion (eg, measures of facial height), the width of central
Discussion
The results indicate that, although some facial measurements showed reasonably good concordance between the 3DFN and Farkas normative datasets, many other measurements showed large discrepancies. All measurements, except perhaps 5 with very small mean effect sizes, showed differences great enough to warrant caution in how these craniofacial norms should be used. Of the 24 measurements compared, one-half were larger and one-half were smaller in the 3DFN dataset compared with the Farkas dataset.
Conclusions
Of the 24 facial measurements investigated, all but a handful showed meaningful differences between the 3DFN and Farkas normative datasets, with more than half showing moderate-to-large effect sizes (d ≥ 0.50). These differences were not systematically biased in any direction; one half of the measurements were larger and the other half smaller in the 3DFN dataset. Although many of the differences noted here may be related to the method of measurement (3D image–based indirect versus
Data availability statement
The individual-level measurements and raw 3D surface images for all participants in the 3DFN dataset are available through the controlled-access FaceBase repository (https://www.facebase.org/). In addition, genotypic markers for these individuals are available to the research community through the dbGaP controlled-access repository (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap) at accession number: phs000949.v1.p1. The summary statistics for the Farkas dataset are published and publically available.23
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Zachary D. Raffensperger and Raquel S. Sandoval for their assistance with data collection and Michael L. Cunningham, Carrie L. Heike, Jacqueline T. Hecht, George L. Wehby, Lina M. Moreno, and Mary L. Marazita for their assistance with the 3DFN project.
References (32)
- et al.
The FaceBase Consortium: a comprehensive program to facilitate craniofacial research
Dev Biol
(2011) - et al.
Evaluation of the laser surface scanner as a measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements
Br J Plast Surg
(1995) - et al.
Comparison of three methods of facial measurement
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2007) - et al.
Measures of effect size for comparative studies: applications, interpretations, and limitations
Contemp Educ Psychol
(2000) Epidemiologic aspects of overweight and obesity in the United States
Physiol Behav
(2005)- et al.
Anthropometric craniofacial pattern profiles in Down syndrome
Am J Med Genet
(1993) - et al.
Quantitative approach to identifying abnormal variation in the human face exemplified by a study of 278 individuals with five craniofacial syndromes
Am J Med Genet
(2000) - et al.
Preoperative craniofacial dysmorphology in isolated sagittal synostosis: a comprehensive anthropometric evaluation
J Craniofac Surg
(2010) - et al.
Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology in normal Japanese children as control data for cleft surgery
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
(2002) - et al.
Methods to quantify soft tissue-based cranial growth and treatment outcomes in children: a systematic review
PLoS One
(2014)
Using the 3D Facial Norms Database to investigate craniofacial sexual dimorphism in healthy children, adolescents, and adults
Biol Sex Differ
Hypertelorism and orofacial clefting revisited: an anthropometric investigation
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
Craniofacial anthropometry: practical measurement of the head and face for clinical, surgical and research use
The 3D Facial Norms database: part 1. A web-based craniofacial anthropometric and image repository for the clinical and research community
Cleft Palate Craniofac J
Genome-wide association study reveals multiple loci influencing normal human facial morphology
PLoS Genet
Genome-wide association study of facial morphology reveals novel associations with FREM1 and PARK2
PLoS One
Cited by (13)
A novel approach quantifying the periorbital morphology: A comparison of direct, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional technologies
2021, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeryCitation Excerpt :To date, 3D measurements have been increasingly popular, assessing the craniofacial soft tissue surface. It is presented with enormous advantages, e.g., rapid capture speed, permanent and high-resolution documentation14 and a broader set of measurements, among others.15-19 Therefore, we are the first to propose a detailed and standardized landmark placement protocol on periorbital surfaces to assess the periorbital region.4,10,20
Determination of Landmarks on Vietnamese Human Face Using Convolutional Neural Network
2023, Lecture Notes in Networks and SystemsAge-related changes of the periocular morphology: a two- and three-dimensional anthropometry study in Caucasians
2023, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental OphthalmologyExpanding the Classic Facial Canons: Quantifying Intercanthal Distance in a Diverse Patient Population
2022, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open
The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Funding: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U01-DE020078; R01-DE016148) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R01-DD000295). The funders played no part in the design or execution of the work presented here, and the content is solely the responsibility of the author.