Comparison between landmark and surface-based three-dimensional analyses of facial asymmetry in adults

50Citations
Citations of this article
103Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Summary Background/Objectives: To collect the reference values for facial asymmetry in adults using landmark and surface-based three-dimensional analyses and to compare their diagnostic abilities. Materials and Methods: Laser scans were taken from 85 British Caucasians, 29 males (23.9±5.7 years, range 19-44) and 56 females (28.1±9.5 years, range 19-54), students and staff of the Cardiff Dental Hospital, and three orthodontic patients with marked facial asymmetry. An asymmetry index (AI) was measured for 14 landmarks. The surface-to-surface average distance between the best-fit registered original and mirror scans (ADom) was measured for the whole face and six regions. Non-parametric descriptive statistics was used to obtain the reference values, and Mann-Whitney U-test was used for gender comparison. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Patients' values were compared to the reference values by calculating the corresponding percentiles. Results: The lowest AI was found for 'pronasale' in males [median 0.1 (interquartile range 0.0-0.3) mm] and the highest for 'cheilion' [3.5 (2.4-5.0) mm] in females. The ADom for the whole face was 0.7 (0.5-0.9) mm in males and 0.6 (0.5-0.7) mm in females and regionally between 0.4 (0.3-0.6) mm and 0.8 (0.4-1.2) mm. In orthodontic patients, AI did not always reveal asymmetry in a particular coordinate plane, and surface-based analysis was favourable in regions underrepresented by landmarks. Conclusions: Facial asymmetry can be accurately quantified using landmark- and surface-based approaches. The latter offers a more comprehensive analysis of the face.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alqattan, M., Djordjevic, J., Zhurov, A. I., & Richmond, S. (2015). Comparison between landmark and surface-based three-dimensional analyses of facial asymmetry in adults. European Journal of Orthodontics, 37(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt075

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free