A Comparison of Soft Tissue Face Analysis Measurements with Face Analysis Measurements in 3-D Modelling

Abstract

Objective: The face is the most important factor determining the physical appearance of individuals. Measurements of facial beauty have continuously been made and evaluated on two-dimensional, photographs. As an alternative method, the evaluation of facial morphology could be better determined using 3D technology. The aim of this study was to assist in facial analysis by measuring the soft tissue facial ratios in our society in order to compare these values with the proportions and measurements of the 3D facial model of the patient. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 (10 male, 14 female) subjects’ faces and their 3D masks were measured to compare the results of each measurement. Results: There was a significant difference between the soft tissue measurements and 3D measurements of only the dorsal width measurements of male patients (p=0.019) and columellar length and upper lip width measurements of women (p=0.021, p=0.035), while other facial analysis measurements showed no significant differences. Additionally, no significant difference other than the upper width, nasolabial angle, and lateral intercantal distance measurements were noted in the 3D mask (p=0.026, p=0.022, p=0.042). Conclusion: This study examined the compatibility of the 3D-printed models and soft tissue measurements. We found no significant difference except for the dorsal width measurements of male patients and the columellar length and upper lip width measurements of female patients. These results suggest that modelling with 3D printing is technologically safe and advantageous and has great potential in facial aesthetics and surgical interventions.

Keywords

• Facial analysis
• three-dimensional printing
• facial aesthetics

References

1. 1. Anand S, Tripathi S, Chopra A, Khaneja K, Agarwal S. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face and their correlation to phi among Indians in Moradabad population: A survey. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15(2):125-30. google scholar
2. 2. Fink M, Hirschfelder U, Hirschinger V, Schmid M, Spitzl C, Detterbeck A, et al. Assessment of facial soft-tissue profiles based on lateral photographs versus three-dimensional face scans. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78(1):70-6. google scholar
3. 3. Veerala G, Gandikota CS, Yadagiri PK, Manne R, Juvvadi SR, Farah T, et al. Marquardt’s facial golden decagon mask and its fitness with South Indian facial traits. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(4):ZC49-52. google scholar
4. 4. Al-Rudainy D, Ju X, Mehendale FV, Ayoub A. Longitudinal 3D assessment of facial asymmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2019;56(4):495-501. google scholar
5. 5. Steinbacher DM. Three-Dimensional analysis and surgical planning in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015;73(12 Suppl):S40-56 google scholar
6. 6. Ritschl LM, Grill FD, Mittermeier F, Lonic D, Wolff KD, Roth M, et al. Evaluation of a portable low-budget three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry system for nasal analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018;46(12):2008-16. google scholar
7. 7. Bauermeister AJ, Zuriarrain A, Newman MI. Three-Dimensional printing in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A Systematic Review. Ann Plast Surg 2016;77(5):569-76. google scholar
8. 8. Sinha P, Bylapudi BP, Puranik P, Subash A, Rao V. 3D Patient-Specific Biomechanical model of the tongue for the management of tongue tumors: Conceptualization to Reality. Med Bull Sisli Etfal Hosp 2022;56(4):559-63 google scholar

9. 9. Schwam ZG, Chang MT, Barnes MA, Paskhover B. Applications of 3-Dimensional printing in facial plastic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(3):427-8. google scholar
10. 10. Zeng H, Yuan-Liang S, Xie G, Lu F, Fu R. Three-dimensional printing of facial contour based on preoperative computer simulation and its clinical application. Medicine 2019;98(2):e12919. google scholar
11. 11. Savoldelli C, Benat G, Castillo L, Chamorey E, Lutz JC. Accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of a handheld three-dimensional facial imaging device: The Vectra H1. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;120(4):289-96. google scholar
12. 12. Hormozi AK, Toosi AB. Rhinometry: an important clinical index for evaluation of the nose before and after rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32(2):286-93. google scholar
13. 13. Kaya KS, Türk B, Cankaya M, Seyhun N, Coşkun BU. Assessment of facial analysis measurements by golden proportion. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2019;85(4):494-501. google scholar