4.3 Article

The normal-equivalent: a patient-specific assessment of facial harmony

Journal

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.03.011

Keywords

facial analysis; dysmorphometrics; normal-equivalent; face-space

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP0772650, DP110105250]
  2. Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation in Perth, Western Australia
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0772650] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence-based practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery would greatly benefit from an objective assessment of facial harmony or gestalt. Normal reference faces have previously been introduced, but they describe harmony in facial form as an average only and fail to report on harmonic variations found between non-dysmorphic faces. In this work, facial harmony, in all its complexity, is defined using a face-space, which describes all possible variations within a non-dysmorphic population; this was sampled here, based on 400 healthy subjects. Subsequently, dysmorphometrics, which involves the measurement of morphological abnormalities, is employed to construct the normal-equivalent within the given face-space of a presented dysmorphic face. The normal-equivalent can be seen as a synthetic identical but unaffected twin that is a patient-specific and population-based normal. It is used to extract objective scores of facial discordancy. This technique, along with a comparing approach, was used on healthy subjects to establish ranges of discordancy that are accepted to be normal, as well as on two patient examples before and after surgical intervention. The specificity of the presented normal-equivalent approach was confirmed by correctly attributing abnormality and providing regional depictions of the known dysmorphologies. Furthermore, it proved to be superior to the comparing approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available