Skip to main content
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2019 Jun 14;5(6):e01880. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01880

A comparison between 2D and 3D methods of quantifying facial morphology

IY Anas a,, BO Bamgbose b,c, Saleh Nuhu d
PMCID: PMC6579906  PMID: 31338446

Abstract

Objectives

Currently, two & three-dimensional (2D & 3D) imaging techniques have largely replaced the direct anthropometric method in the assessment of facial morphology, but the difference between the two techniques was not quantified. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare and quantify (the difference between) the two techniques.

Materials and methods

The faces of 150 subjects (75 males, 75 females) of northern Nigeria, predominantly Hausa ethnic group, were photographed (using digital camera) and scanned (using a 3D surface laser scanner). Facial dimensions were generated from the resulting virtual 2D and 3D models. Data were analyzed using R-statistic software & Paired sample t-test/Pearson correlation were conducted to compare the two methods and to quantify the level of closeness between the two measurements.

Results

Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was very low (0.26) for the 3D and 2D measurements indicating the level of differences between the methods. Measurements taken with laser scanner were higher relative to the one taken by camera. The mean differences between the 3D and the 2D methods of quantifying facial morphology indicated a statistically significant positive difference. CONCLUSION: 2D and 3D anthropometry cannot be used interchangeably since there exists statistically significant variation between the two methods.

Keywords: Anatomy, Health profession, Comparison, Facial morphology, 2D, 3D, Methods

1. Introduction

Currently, 2D and 3D imaging techniques are mainly used for the assessment of the human facial morphology and largely replaced direct anthropometry, which in the past, was the only method for the assessment of the human facial morphology, and was the only source of large volume of literature on human face anthropometry (Farkas, 1994; Aung et al., 1995; Zankl et al., 2002). Studies intended on large population is barely impossible with direct anthropometry, simply because it is time consuming, and again not suitable for infants and children. The major disadvantage with the direct anthropometry is its inability to provide digital coordinate record of the participants for later use in order to extract new facial measurements. The use of the metallic instruments (e.g., Vernier, Sliding or Spreading Calipers) may occasionally press against the measured soft tissues, and the accuracy and reliability of this technique is therefore skeptical. The use of the two dimensional (2D) (Langlois and Roggman, 1990; Ferrario et al., 1993; Rhodes, 1998; Rhodes et al., 2005; Rennels et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2010; Hooder and Souza, 2012), and three dimensional (3D) measurement techniques (Burke, 1971; Burke and Healy, 1993; Ras et al., 1995; Heike et al., 2010; Verhoeven et al., 2013; Ladeira et al., 2013), in the quantification of facial morphology has largely replaced the direct anthropometric method in the recent time. However, the preference and accuracy of one over the other is largely equivocal, which culminated into comparative studies (Farkas, 2002; Weinberg et al., 2006; Ghoddousi et al., 2007; Noyan et al., 2011; Joe et al., 2012; Kramer et al., 2012). The 2D method poses many advantages, for example, rapid acquisition of images, archival capabilities and low cost. Although more expensive than the 2D, 3D method has simplified the craniofacial studies and thus the availability of 3D cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Cevidanes et al., 2009; Nada et al., 2011), 3D surface laser scanning (Toma et al., 2008; Djordjevic et al., 2011), 3D stereophotogrammetry (Maal et al., 2010; kau et al., 2011) and other 3D methods allow for description and comparison of 3D facial images, quantification of facial morphology (Ghoddousi et al., 2007; Jayaratne and Zwahlen, 2014). In the real sense, the development of optical scanning technology has enhanced facial morphology research from 2D to three-dimension (3D) (Aung et al., 2000; Toma et al., 2009; Berssenbrugge et al., 2014; Vezzetti et al., 2018).

Recently, 3D ultrasonography was interestingly used to extract reference points of fetal faces automatically (Moos et al., 2017) and the authors claim high level of accuracy. Although this method is interesting, but it is only limited to fetuses, albeit it may possibly be good for internal organs such as Heart, Liver, Kidneys and the rest and therefore, physical anthropometry is virtually impossible with such method.

Similarly, automatic method for the extraction of facial morphological features was recently devised from the 3D facial scans with 97% face classification accuracy (Abbas et al., 2015), thereby simplifying the whole process. Comparison between 2 methods can be used to determine the performance evaluation of technical equipment (Enciso et al., 2004; Aung et al., 1995, Aung et al., 2000).

Although the 2D and 3D methods of quantifying facial morphology are the most commonly used techniques, studies are yet to quantify the levels of variation between the two methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the levels of differences between 2D and 3D methods of quantifying facial dimensions. This paper was organized with the following headings: Introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion.

2. Materials and method

2.1. 3D images capturing (scanning) technique and processing

The study recruited 150 participants from Kano and Kaduna States in Nigeria, predominantly Hausa ethnic group, by simple random sampling. The participants were recruited only after receiving informed consent and was also informed that their privacy rights of human subjects will be observed and the that the study was purely anonymous. The age range was 18–25 years. The faces of the study participants were scanned using Exascan 3D Laser surface scanner from Creaform® (www.handyscan3d.com), and saved in a computer for analyses. Prior to the commencement of the study, the scanner was calibrated to correct any optical or electronic distortions and the sensor configured for dark skin. Prior to scanning, positioning targets were placed on the face of each participant, from the hair line down to the chin, and along each side of the face including the ears. Test scans were conducted with the participant lying supine with and without the use of a dough-nut shaped head rest and with the subject sitting down still. The preliminary results indicated better images with the participants sitting rather than lying supine. Scanning was done with each participant seated in an upright position, asked to sit still on a chair with the head facing up (neck extended) at a slight angle of about 45° relative to the floor, as this position was found to be the most comfortable to scan eliminating the need for the researcher to bend over while aquiring images. Participants were instructed to keep their eyes closed to avoid discomfort from the laser beams. During the scanning process, the 3D digital scan is generated on the computer screen in real time, allowing the researcher to continue scanning until a satisfactory scan has been created (Fig. 1). Good quality 3D facial scans were obtained with the subject maintaining a natural pose with neutral facial expression (see (Peter et al., 2004). In a situation where the position or pose of the subject distorted the face, or if the facial expression was not neutral, the scans were discarded as the inclusion of non-neutral facial expressions would have affected morphological comparisons between subjects (see (Peter et al., 2004). Each of the obtained scan was then trimmed and cleaned of any mesh (e.g., Fig. 2) before the analyses.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Un-cleaned scanned face.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Cleaned scanned face.

2.2. 3D linear measurements using landmarks

Facial dimensions were acquired by using standard landmarks (Table 1) on various locations of the face (Figs. 3 and 4) using the Geomagic studio software 12. Raw landmark coordinates were exported into Excel and saved as .csv file (comma delimited) for each individual. The metrics of each facial scan for each individual were acquired from a personally designed template using the coordinates of a single scan. Facial geometrical features are extracted from the Cartesian coordinates of the neoclassical canonical landmarks as reference points (Vezzetti and Marcolin, 2012). The Euclidean distances (dimensions) are most often extracted by the use of the Pythagoras formula which corresponds to the Euclidean distance, and the Euclidean distance between points X and Y is the length of line connecting the 2 points [See (Moos et al., 2017; Vezzetti et al., 2018; Cirrincione et al., 2018)].

Table 1.

Summary of facial landmarks used in this study and their descriptions.

Point Landmark Name Description
P1 ex (r) Exocanthion Outer commissure of the right eye fissure
P2 so (r) Supraorbitale The most prominent point on the right supraorbitale
P3 en (r) Endocanthion Endocanthion of the right eye fissure
P4 N Nasion Midpoint between the eyes, just above the bridge of the nose
P5 en (l) Endocanthion Endocanthion of the left eye fissure
P6 so (l) Supraorbitale The most prominent point on the left supraorbitale
P7 ex (l) Exocanthion Exocanthion of the left eye fissure
P8 zy (r) Zygion The most lateral point on the right cheek
P9 al (r) Alar Most lateral point on the right alar contour
P10 Sn Subnasale Mid-point of angle at columella base
P11 al (l) Alar Most lateral point on the left alar contour
P12 zy (l) Zygion The most lateral point on the left cheek
P13 go (r) Gonion The point at the angle of the (r) mandible
P14 ch (r) Chelion Point located at right labial commissure
P15 Ls L. superior Midpoint of the border of the upper lip
P16 ch (l) Chelion Point located at left labial commissure
P17 go (l) Gonion The point at the angle of the left mandible
P18 Sto Stomium Midpoint of closed lip
P19 Li L. inferior Midpoint of the lower vermilion
P20 gn Gnathion The lower-most point on the mid-anterior of the menton
P21 pr Pronasale The most prominent point on the tip of the nose
P22 sl Sublabius Midpoint of the junction between the lower lip and the chin

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Sexually dimorphic dimensions. Red dimensions greater in females & Blue dimensions greater in males.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

22 landmarks used for quantifying facial shape.

Pythagoras formula: SQRT ((X1-X2)ˆ2+(Y1–Y2)ˆ2+(Z1-Z2)ˆ2).

Each individual measurement so acquired from the template, was saved as .xls file, were copied and pasted into the main Excel file in ascending order of the questionnaire number. Normality of the facial metrics data was tested using the ‘Kolmogorov Smirnov’ and ‘Shapiro tests’ to guide the type of analysis (Schoder et al., 2006; Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012).

2.3. 2D linear measurements using landmarks

The facial dimensions were recorded to the nearest millimetres (mm) from the 2D facial images, performed using Facial art software with magnification factor of 0.5 (Fig. 5). The software automatically calculated all the measurements identified on each landmark record, which were then transferred to Microsoft excel.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

2D Facial landmarks and Art face software interface.

2.4. 2D images capturing (photo-taking) technique and processing

The face of each of the 150 study subjects was captured using 24-mm wide-angle lens camera (Sony, model DSC-W380 made in china), with a shutter speed of 1/125 per second, and a primary flash light. A 100-mm focal lens and a zooming power of 3.6 was selected in order to maintain the natural proportions. Each of the participant was positioned on a line marked on the floor, which is about 100cm (kept constant) from another marked lined just in front of the former line, similar to the method used by Joe et al., (2012). Each of the participants was asked to stand erect facing the camera, and was also asked to maintain a neutral face adopting the position they normally show during the day, and an identification number was placed behind the participant so as to merge each subject with his/her 3D scans. The operator ensured that the participant's forehead, neck, and ears were clearly visible during the recording.

2.5. Ethical approval

This study has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans and was approved by the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) of Nigeria.

3. Results

3.1. Repeatability (Intra-observer error)

Intra-observer analysis was carried out using the method adopted by Osvaldo et al. (2012), by re-measuring the same metrics on the 25 randomly selected scans 2 weeks after the first 25 sets of measurements and the data were then analyzed using Paired Samples T-Tests. Measurement error was below 5% for all metrics and substantially lower for most, but some metrics differed in their mean values between first and second measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was very low (0.26) for the 3D and 2D measurements (Table 2) indicating the level of differences between the methods of quantifying facial morphology. Table 3 shows the comparison between the means of the 2D and 3D facial dimensions using paired t-test. In all the twelve (12) pairs compared, measurements taken with laser scanner were higher relative to the one taken by camera. The mean differences between the 3D and the 2D methods of quantifying facial morphology indicated a positive difference which were found to be statistically significant in all the pairs considered (Table 4).

Table 2.

Intraclass correlation coefficient.

Intraclass Correlation 95% Confidence Interval
F Test with True Value 0
Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 P - value
Single Measures 0.01 0.01 0.02 16.67 148 3700 0.0001
Average Measures 0.26 0.15 0.38 16.67 148 3700 0.0001

Table 3.

Comparison of 2D and 3D facial dimensions.

Parameters Mean ± SD Correlation P - value
Pair 1 Exen3D 42.30 ± 2.95 0.33 0.0001
exen2D 25.51 ± 3.02
Pair 2 exzy3D 42.08 ± 5.83 0.31 0.0001
exzy2D 15.14 ± 1.81
Pair 3 exal3D 55.01 ± 3.44 0.31 0.0001
exal2D 37.61 ± 5.11
Pair 4 exch3D 74.28 ± 4.41 0.43 0.0001
exch2D 57.07 ± 6.63
Pair 5 enzy3D 77.32 ± 5.84 0.30 0.0001
enzy2D 36.25 ± 4.06
Pair 6 enal3D 38.45 ± 2.77 0.37 0.0001
enal2D 28.02 ± 3.76
Pair 7 ench3D 71.21 ± 4.07 0.45 0.0001
ench2D 51.83 ± 6.39
Pair 8 zyal3D 83.77 ± 6.92 0.71 0.037
zyal2D 37.94 ± 5.55
Pair 9 zych3D 87.77 ± 7.24 0.33 0.0001
zych2D 51.88 ± 6.18
Pair 10 alal3D 40.80 ± 4.11 0.57 0.0001
alal2D 34.16 ± 4.72
Pair 11 zyzy3D 139.55 ± 6.50 0.31 0.0001
zyzy2D 98.93 ± 11.15
Pair 12 nsn3D 48.11 ± 3.32 0.31 0.0001
nsn2D 40.38 ± 5.10
Pair 13 enen3D 30.59 ± 3.45 0.36 0.0001
enen2D 28.65 ± 4.09

Table 4.

Mean differences between 3D and 2D.

Parameters Paired Differences
t- value P - value
Mean ± SD 95% CI of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Exen3D- exen2D 16.79 ± 3.45 16.23 17.35 59.31 0.0001
Pair 2 exzy3D - exzy2D 26.94 ± 5.55 26.04 27.84 59.20 0.0001
Pair 3 Exal3D- exal2D 17.39 ± 5.22 16.55 18.24 40.67 0.0001
Pair 4 Exch3D- exch2D 17.21 ± 6.19 16.21 18.22 33.96 0.0001
Pair 5 Enzy3D- enzy2D 41.07 ± 6.02 40.09 42.05 83.22 0.0001
Pair 6 Enal3D- enal2D 10.42 ± 3.75 9.81 11.03 33.90 0.0001
Pair 7 Ench3D - ench2D 19.38 ± 5.84 18.43 20.32 40.49 0.0001
Pair 8 Zyal3D- zyal2D 45.83 ± 8.10 44.52 47.14 69.08 0.0001
Pair 9 Zych3D- zych2D 35.88 ± 7.79 34.62 37.15 56.20 0.0001
Pair 10 Alal3D- alal2D 6.65 ± 4.14 5.98 7.32 19.58 0.0001
Pair 11 Zyzy3D- zyzy2D 40.62 ± 11.04 38.83 42.40 44.91 0.0001
Pair 12 Nsn3D - nsn2D 7.73 ± 5.14 6.89 8.56 18.37 0.0001
Pair 13 Enen3D- enen2D 1.94 ± 4.29 1.24 2.63 5.50 0.0001

4. Discussion

Direct anthropometric measurements have been used for the study of facial morphology for long period of time. In the recent time, 2D photographs are commonly used for such studies and for assessment and treatment of facial abnormalities. However, the 2D images in assessing facial morphology is subject to errors because the natural 3D facial anatomy will be translated in 2D (Enciso et al., 2004). The latest 3D imaging devices are specifically designed to capture and quantify facial morphology and are presently very common in the research environments (Da Silveira et al., 2003; Fourie, 2010; Plooij et al., 2011; Knoops et al., 2017). These 3D devices were purposely manufactured just to address the shortcomings of the 2D imaging systems, and several of them are now available to generate 3D surface facial images such as laser scans, stereo-photogrammetry, and infrared imaging (Enciso et al., 2004; Weinberg et al., 2006; Tzou et al., 2014). The three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging with its advances, are having a dramatic impact on the field of craniofacial anthropometry (Bailey and Byrnes, 1990). Relatively few studies have directly compared anthropometric measurements obtained through alternative methods. Previous studies have focused mainly on the concordance between direct and indirect measurement techniques, comparing traditional caliper-based anthropometry with either standard 2D photogrammetry (Guyot et al., 2003) or cephalometry (Guyot et al., 2003; Budai et al., 2003). Along these same lines, a few studies have also compared direct anthropometric measurements with those obtained by way of indirect 3D surface imaging methods, including traditional stereo-photogrammetry (Weinberg et al., 2006; Meintjes et al., 2002), surface laser scanning (Baca et al., 1994; Aung et al., 1995), and fully automated digital 3D photogrammetry (Losken et al., 2005; Weinberg et al., 2006).

Our study has, to some extent, quantified the levels of the differences between 2D and 3D measurement of facial morphology. The findings of our study were in agreement with the results obtained by van Vlijmen et al. (Van VLIJMEN et al., 2009), where they compared 2D images obtained from radiographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-constructed 3D models. They reported a statistically significant difference between the 2D and 3D measurements.

Although, these methods serve as veritable tools in the study of facial morphology for varying purposes, they cannot be used interchangeably, more especially in clinical evaluation of facial form diagnosis as pointed out by Zamani (2015). In the developing world where there is no 3D scanners, direct and 2D anthropometry are the only means of assessing and evaluating facial morphology, however, it has to be noted that the advantages of those two methods should not be overemphasized over the 3D since in the 2D anthropometry, the depth of the face is lost. The fact that there is a statistically significant difference between two-dimensional and three-dimensional images, the 2D facial models can still be used especially when assessing or evaluation of facial dimensions with less significant differences as seen in the previous table.

5. Conclusion

The 2D method of quantifying facial morphology is one of the easiest and cheap method in the field of facial anthropology (a field in the Biological anthropology), simply because it is non-invasive, less time consuming, not boring to the participating subjects and above all, data from this method is easy to analyze. However, despite its advantages, the 3D method is far better, especially in terms of accuracy and additional depth of the image been taken, but 2D is still a useful tool in Bioanthropology despite its limitations and disadvantages.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Anas I. Y., BAMGBOSE B. O., SALEH NUHU: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Bayero University Kano, in collaboration with TetFund (Tertiary education trust Fund).

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contribution of our medical students of the year 2013 who helped in mobilizing the participants, our colleagues in Bayero University Kano who helped with some suggestions and also our research assistants from Kano and Kaduna states.

References

  1. Abbas H., Hicks Y., Marshall D. Automatic classification of facial morphology for medical applications. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015;60:1649–1658. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aung S.C., Foo C.L., Lee S.T. Three dimensional laser scan assessment of the oriental nose with a new classification of oriental nasal types. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 2000;53:109–116. doi: 10.1054/bjps.1999.3229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aung S.C., Ngim R.C.K., Lee S.T. Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1995;48:551–558. doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(95)90043-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baca D.B., Deutsch C.K., D’agostino R.B. Correspondence between direct anthropometry and structured light digital measurement. In: Farkas' L.G., editor. Anthopometry of the Head and Face. Raven Press; NewYork: 1994. pp. 235–238. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailey R.C., Byrnes J. A new, old method for assessing measurement error in both univariate and multivariate morphometric studies. Syst. Zool. 1990;39:124–130. [Google Scholar]
  6. Berssenbrugge P., Berlin N.F., Kebeck G., Runte C., Jung S., Kleinheinz J. 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison. J. Cranio-Maxillo-Fac. Surg. 2014;42:e327–e334. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Budai M., Farkas L.G., Tompson B., Katic M., Forrest C.R. Relation between anthropometric and cephalometric measurements and proportions of the face of healthy young white adult men and women. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2003;14:154–161. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200303000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke P.H. Stereophotogrammetric measurement of normal facial asymmetry in children. Hum. Biol. 1971;43:536–548. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke P.H., Healy M.J.R. A serial study of normal facial asymmetry in monozygotic twins. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1993;20:527–534. doi: 10.1080/03014469300002932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cevidanes L.H., Alhadidi A., Paniagua B., Styner M., Ludlow J. Three-dimensional quantification of mandibular asymmetry through cone-beam computerized tomography. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2009;111:757–770. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.02.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cirrincione G., Marcolin F., Spada S., Vezzetti E. Intelligent quality assessment of geometrical features for 3D face recognition. In: Esposito A., Faundez-Zanuy M., Morabito F., Pasero E., editors. Vol. 102. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; 2018. (Neural Advances in Processing Nonlinear Dynamic Signals. WIRN 2017 2017). [Google Scholar]
  12. Da silveira A.C., Daw J.L., JR., Kusnoto B., Evans C., Cohen M. Craniofacial applications of three-dimensional laser surface scanning. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2003;14:449–456. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200307000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Djordjevic J., Toma A.M., Zhurov A.I., Richmond S. Three-dimensional quantification of facial symmetry in adolescents using laser surface scanning. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011;36:125–132. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Enciso R., Alexandroni E.S., Benyamein K., Keim R.A., Mah J. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro. Vol. 2. 2004. ‘’Precision, repeatability and validation of indirect 3D anthropometric measurements with light-based imaging techniques’’; pp. 1119–1122. [Google Scholar]
  15. Farkas L.G. Raven Press; New York, NY: 1994. Anthropometry of the Head and Face (ed 2) pp. 103–111. [Google Scholar]
  16. Farkas L.G. Differences between direct (anthropometric) and indirect (cephalometric) measurements of the skull. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2002;13:105–108. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200201000-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferrario V.F., Sforza C., Miani A., Tartaglia G. Craniofacial morphometry by photographic evaluations. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:327–337. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70013-E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fourie Z. Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using different three-dimensional scanning systems. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010;207:127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghasemi A., Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012;10:486–489. doi: 10.5812/ijem.3505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghoddousi H., Edler R., Haers P., Wertheim D., Greenhill D. Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007;36:250–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Guyot L., Dubuc M., Richard O. Comparison between direct clinical and digital photogrammetric measurements in patients with 22q11 microdeletion. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2003;32:246–252. doi: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Heike C., Upson K., Stuhaug E., Weinberg S. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head Face Med. 2010;6:18. doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-6-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hooder S., Souza M. Evaluation of facial asymmetry using digital photographs with computer aided analysis. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2012;12:8. doi: 10.1007/s13191-011-0087-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jayaratne Y.S., Zwahlen R.A. Application of digital anthropometry for craniofacial assessment. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2014;7:10–17. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1371540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Joe P.S., Ito Y., Shih A.M., Oestenstad R.K., Lungu C.T. Comparison of a novel surface laser scanning anthropometric technique to traditional methods for facial parameter measurements. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2012;9:81–88. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2011.640557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kau C.H., Kamel S.G., Wilson J., Wong M.E. New method for analysis of facial growth in a pediatric reconstructed mandible. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:e285–290. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Knoops P.G., Beaumont C.A., Borghi A., Rodriguez-Florez N., Breakey W., Rodgers W. Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kramer R.S.S., Kramer A., Jones R., Ward T. A lack of sexual dimorphism in width-to-height ratio in white European faces using 2D photographs, 3D scans, and anthropometry. PLoS One. 2012;7 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042705. e42705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ladeira P.R.S.D., Bastos E.O., Vanini J.V., Alonso N. Use of stereophotogrammetry for evaluating craniofacial deformities: a systemic review. Rev. Bras. de Cir. Platistica. 2013;28:147–155. [Google Scholar]
  30. Langlois J.H., Roggman L.A. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1990;1:115–121. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee M.-S., Chung D.H., Lee J.-W., Cha K.-S. Assessing soft-tissue characteristics of facial asymmetry with photographs. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Losken A., Seify H., Denson D.D. Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2005;54:471–476. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000155278.87790.a1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Maal T.J., Van LOON B., Plooij J.M., Rangel F., Ettema A.M. Registration of 3-dimensional facial photographs for clinical use. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010;68:2391–2401. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Meintjes E.M., Douglas T.S., Martinez F. A stereophotogrammetric method to measure the facial dysmorphology of children in the diagnosis of fetal alcohol syndrome. Med. Eng. Phys. 2002;24:683–689. doi: 10.1016/s1350-4533(02)00114-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Moos S., Marcolin F., Tornincasa S. Cleft lip pathology diagnosis and foetal landmark extraction via 3D geometrical analysis. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2017;11:1–18. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nada R.M., Maal T.J., Breuning K.H., Berge S.J., Mostafa Y.A. Accuracy and reproducibility of voxel based superimposition of cone beam computed tomography models on the anterior cranial base and the zygomatic arches. PLoS One. 2011;6 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Noyan A., Brent E.L., Vladimir L.-S., Soraya B. Accuracy and precision of a 3D anthropometric facial analysis with and without landmark labeling before image acquisition. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:245–252. doi: 10.2319/041810-210.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Osvaldo F., Rachael L., Eduardo D.J., Andrea S., Silveira D. Sexual dimorphism in Brazilian human skulls: discriminant function analysis. J. Forensic Odontostomatol. 2012;30:26–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Peter H., Tim J.H., Judith E.A., Linda E.C., Raoul C.M.H., Sean H., Michael A.P., Adam S., Temple I.K., Mathew T., Kieran C.M., Robin M.W. 3D a analysis of facial morphology. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2004;126A:339–348. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Plooij J.M., Maal T.J., Haers P., Borstlap W.A., Kuijpers-Jagtman A.M., Berge S.J. Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. a systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011;40:341–352. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ras F., Habets L., Vanginkel F.C., Prahlandersen B. Method for quantifying facial asymmetry in 3 dimensions using stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:233–239. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0233:MFQFAI>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rennels J., Bronstad P.M., Langlois J. Are attractive men's faces masculine or feminine? The importance of type of facial stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2008;34:884–893. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rhodes G. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 1998;5:659–669. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rhodes G., Simmons L.W., Peters M. Attractiveness and sexual behavior: does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evol. Hum. Behav. 2005;26:186–201. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schoder V., Himmelmann A., Wilhelm K.P. Preliminary testing for normality: some statistical aspects of a common concept. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2006;31:757–761. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2006.02206.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Toma A.M., Zhurov A., Playle R., Ong E., Richmond S. Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on 3D laser-scanned facial images. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2009;12:33–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.01435.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Toma A.M., Zhurov A.I., Playle R., Richmond S. A three-dimensional look for facial differences between males and females in a British-Caucasians sample aged 151/2 years old. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2008;11:180–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.00428.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tzou C.H., Artner N.M., Pona I., Hold A., Placheta E., Kropatsch W.G. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2014;67:489–497. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van VLIJMEN O.J.C., Maal T.J.J., Berge S.J., Bronkhorst E.M., Katsaros C., Kuijpers-Jagtman A.M. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2009;117:300–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00633.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Verhoeven T.J., Coppen C., Barkhuysen R., Bronkhorst E.M., Merkx M.A.W., Berge S.J., Maal T.J.J. Three dimensional evaluation of facial asymmetry after mandibular reconstruction: validation of a new method using stereophotogrammetry. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013;42:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vezzetti E., Marcolin F. Geometrical descriptors for human face morphological analysis and recognition. Robot. Autonom. Syst. 2012;60:928–939. [Google Scholar]
  52. Vezzetti E., Marcolin F., Tornincasa S., Ulrich L., Dagnes N. Kluwer Academic Publishers Norwell; MA, USA: 2018. 3D Geometry-Based Automatic Landmark Localization in Presence of Facial Occlusions. [Google Scholar]
  53. Weinberg S.M., Naidoo S., Govier D.P., Martin R.A., Kane A.A., Marazita M.L. 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. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200605000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zamani P. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of School of Dental Medicine in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Dental. Science University of Pittsburgh; 2015. Comparing 3d & 2d facial photography to clinical facial form analysis for orthodontic diagnosis. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zankl A., Eberle L., Molinari L., Schinzel A. Growth charts for nose length, nasal protrusion and philtrum length from birth to 97 years. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2002;111:388–391. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.10472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES