PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(01): 100-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702258
Original Article

A Comparison of 3D Facial Features in a Population from Zimbabwe and United States

Elvin Bhaskar
1   Department of Orthodontics, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
,
Chung H. Kau
1   Department of Orthodontics, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in three-dimensional (3D) facial features in a population from Zimbabwe and the United States. In addition, this study seeks to establish an average facial template of each population allowing clinicians to treat patients according to their cultural esthetic perceptions.

Materials and Methods Three hundred one subjects from Zimbabwe and the United States were carefully selected and recruited for the study. Each subject presented with a normal facial profile, no asymmetries, and normal body mass index. The 3D images were captured using the 3dMD cameras. All images were further separated into male and female groups of the respective populations and imported to a dedicated software for analysis.

Statistical Analysis The 3D facial images were constructed using Rapidform 6 software to recreate a composite facial average for each group representing a male and female average 3D face of Zimbabwean (Zim) and United States origin.

Results The linear measurements showed that the maximum average distance between the Zim-M and Zim-F was 1.24 mm and the minimum distance between the African American (AA)-M and AA-F was 0.24 mm. This was the absolute distance. When the signed linear measurements were taken into consideration, the maximum average distance between Zim-F and AA-M was 1.22 mm and the least average distance between the Zim-M and AA-M was 0.22 mm. The absolute color histograms showed greatest similarity between the Zim-M and AA-M at 58% and the Zim-F had a 25 and 27% similarity with the AA-F and Zim-M, respectively.

Conclusion The Zim-F showed the most variable features with a broader face, prominent forehead, and retruded alar base compared with their male counterparts and the Zim-M showed a wider prominent malar/zygomatic region, and prominent lateral supraorbital regions. There was a high similarity of 58% between the Zim-M and the AA-M, with the Zim-M showing a more protrusive superciliary arches, and a lateral zygomatic region tapering to the root of the nose.

Keywords

surface acquisition systems - 3D faces - 3D imaging - 3D analysis


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. März 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Gor T, Kau CH, English JD, Lee RP, Borbely P.. Three-dimensional comparison of facial morphology in white populations in Budapest, Hungary, and Houston, Texas. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (03) 424-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Palomo JM, Kau CH, Palomo LB, Hans MG. Three-dimensional cone beam computerized tomography in dentistry. Dent Today 2006; 25 (11) 130, 132-135
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bo Ic M, Kau CH, Richmond S. et al. Facial morphology of Slovenian and Welsh white populations using 3-dimensional imaging. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (04) 640-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kau CH. Creation of the virtual patient for the study of facial morphology. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 615-622, viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Celebi AA., Kau CH., Ozaydin B. Three-dimensional anthropometric evaluation of facial morphology. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28 (05) e470-e474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kim JY, Kau CH, Christou T, Ovsenik M, Guk Park Y. Three-dimensional analysis of normal facial morphologies of Asians and whites: a novel method of quantitative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 04 (09) e865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lightheart KG, English JD, Kau CH. et al. Surface analysis of study models generated from OrthoCAD and cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141 (06) 686-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kau CH, Richmond S. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology surface changes in untreated children from 12 to 14 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134 (06) 751-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kau CH, Richmond S, Incrapera A, English J, Xia JJ. Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robot 2007; 03 (02) 97-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kau CH, Wang J, Davis M. A cross-sectional study to understand 3D facial differences in a population of African Americans and Caucasians. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 485-496
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Talbert L, Kau CH, Christou T, Vlachos C, Souccar N. A 3D analysis of Caucasian and African American facial morphologies in a US population. J Orthod 2014; 41 (01) 19-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Connor AM, Moshiri F. Orthognathic surgery norms for American black patients. Am J Orthod 1985; 87 (02) 119-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Flynn TR, Ambrogio RI, Zeichner SJ. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in black American adults. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989; 47 (01) 30-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 O’Reilly MT. Integumental profile changes after surgical orthodontic correction of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in black patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96 (03) 242-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beukes S, Dawjee SM, Hlongwa P. Soft tissue profile analysis in a sample of South African Blacks with bimaxillary protrusion. SADJ 2007; 62 (05) 206-212, 208–210, 212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dandajena TC, Chung KW, Nanda RS. Assessment of anterior face height in a native African sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 (02) 196-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dandajena TC, Nanda RS. Bialveolar protrusion in a Zimbabwean sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123 (02) 133-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Arnett GW, Jelic JS, Kim J. et al. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis: diagnosis and treatment planning of dentofacial deformity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116 (03) 239-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Proffit WR. Muscle pressures and tooth position: North American whites and Australian aborigines. Angle Orthod 1975; 45 (01) 1-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Caplan MJ, Shivapuja PK. The effect of premolar extractions on the soft-tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod 1997; 67 (02) 129-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kau CH, Zhurov A, Scheer R, Bouwman S, Richmond S. The feasibility of measuring three-dimensional facial morphology in children. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004; 07 (04) 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kau CH, Richmond S, Savio C, Mallorie C. Measuring adult facial morphology in three dimensions. Angle Orthod 2006; 76 (05) 773-778
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Isiekwe GI, daCosta OO, Utomi IL, Sanu OO. Holdaway’s analysis of the nose prominence of an adult Nigerian population. Niger J Clin Pract 2015; 18 (04) 548-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Diouf JS, Ngom PI, Fadiga MS. et al. [Sagittal photogrammetric evaluation of the soft tissue profile between two different racial groups: a comparative study]. Odontostomatol Trop 2015; 38 (150) 5-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sforza C, Dolci C, Tommasi DG, Pisoni L, De Menezes M, Elamin F. Three-dimensional facial distances of Northern Sudanese persons from childhood to young adulthood. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42 (05) e318-e326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fadeju AD, Otuyemi OD, Ngom PI, Newman-Nartey M. A study of cephalometric soft tissue profile among adolescents from the three West African countries of Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal. J Orthod 2013; 40 (01) 53-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wirthlin J, Kau CH, English JD, Pan F, Zhou H. Comparison of facial morphologies between adult Chinese and Houstonian Caucasian populations using three-dimensional imaging. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 42 (09) 1100-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Liu Y, Kau CH, Talbert L, Pan F. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25 (05) 1890-1894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Weinberg SM, Raffensperger ZD, Kesterke MJ. et al 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 2016; 53 (06) e185-e197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Shaffer JR, Orlova E, Lee MK. et al. Genome-wide association study reveals multiple loci influencing normal human facial morphology. PLoS Genet 2016; 12 (08) e1006149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zacharopoulos GV, Manios A, Kau CH, Velagrakis G, Tzanakakis GN, de Bree E. Anthropometric analysis of the face. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27 (01) e71-e75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar