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

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 d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heliyon 2019-06, Vol.5 (6), p.e01880-e01880, Article e01880
Hauptverfasser: Anas, IY, Bamgbose, BO, Nuhu, Saleh
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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. 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. 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.
ISSN:2405-8440
2405-8440
DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01880