Download ASYMMETRY MEASUREMNENT ON SIMULATION MODEL

ASYMMETRY MEASUREMNENT ON SIMULATION MODEL
Salesse Nicolas1*#, Passiri Nisalak2, Nita Viwattanatipa, Phongsathorn Pothongkam 3, Nattapol
Tangjit
1Postgraduate student Master of Science Program in Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol
University, Thailand
2 Associate Professor in orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Thailand
3 Instructor in orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Thailand
*#
[email protected]
Abstract
Objective: To identify the effect of different kind of facial asymmetries using area based
measurements (ABM).
Materials and methods: A perfectly symmetric drawing of a face was used as reference.
Using an image manipulating program three kinds of asymmetric deformation were applied
in an incremental fashion. Different ABM were then performed, by dividing the lower third
of the face in 9 different area. The results were analyzed to see how the different
measurement’s sensitivity and precision were impacted by the three kind of asymmetry and if
patterns emerge allowing to characterize the different deformation.
Results: Not one ABM was suitable for characterizing all the deformation and/or area. The
Area ratio was the most reliable ratio for assessing the asymmetry, difference center milieu
(DCM) and difference vertical milieu (DVC) were the most reliable center of mass based
measurement (CMBM) but have to be use together as DVM is sensitive in the horizontal
dimension and DVC in the vertical one. Each deformation was identifiable by a unique
pattern of measurement. Ratio were more reliable than CMBM (standard deviation ranging
from 0.001 to 0.004 for the ratio and from 0.009 to 0.017 for the moment) but did not allow
the same level of characterization of the asymmetry.
Conclusion: A multi-parameter ABM analysis have to be first conducted to characterize the
asymmetry, asymmetry can then be quantify using appropriate ABM. Division of the face in
anatomically relevant zones, proved useful for characterizing the asymmetry.
Keywords: asymmetry, simulation, image processing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Woo, T.L., On the Asymmetry of the Human Skull. Biometrika, 1931. 22(3/4 ): p. 324-352.
Burke, P.H., Stereophotogrammetric measurement of normal facial asymmetry in children. Hum Biol,
1971. 43(4): p. 536-48.
Ferrario, V.F., et al., The effect of sex and age on facial asymmetry in healthy subjects: a crosssectional study from adolescence to mid-adulthood. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2001. 59(4): p. 382-8.
Severt, T.R. and W.R. Proffit, The prevalence of facial asymmetry in the dentofacial deformities
population at the University of North Carolina. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, 1997. 12(3): p.
171-6.
Farkas, L.G. and G. Cheung, Facial asymmetry in healthy North American Caucasians. An
anthropometrical study. Angle Orthod, 1981. 51(1): p. 70-7.
Song, W.C., et al., Horizontal angular asymmetry of the face in korean young adults with reference to
the eye and mouth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007. 65(11): p. 2164-8.
Melnik, A.K., A cephalometric study of mandibular asymmetry in a longitudinally followed sample of
growing children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1992. 101(4): p. 355-66.
Duthie, J., et al., A longitudinal study of normal asymmetric mandibular growth and its relationship to
skeletal maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007. 132(2): p. 179-84.
Lee, M.S., et al., Assessing soft-tissue characteristics of facial asymmetry with photographs. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010. 138(1): p. 23-31.
Padwa, B.L., M.O. Kaiser, and L.B. Kaban, Occlusal cant in the frontal plane as a reflection of facial
asymmetry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1997. 55(8): p. 811-6; discussion 817.
Chebib, F.S. and A.M. Chamma, Indices of craniofacial asymmetry. Angle Orthod, 1981. 51(3): p.
214-26.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Grummons, D.C. and M.A. Kappeyne van de Coppello, A frontal asymmetry analysis. J Clin Orthod,
1987. 21(7): p. 448-65.
Thornhill, R. and S.W. Gangestad, Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn Sci, 1999. 3(12): p. 452-460.
Baudouin, J.Y. and G. Tiberghien, Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness
of women. Acta Psychol (Amst), 2004. 117(3): p. 313-32.
Grammer, K. and R. Thornhill, Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the
role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol, 1994. 108(3): p. 233-42.
Meyer-Marcotty, P., et al., Impact of facial asymmetry in visual perception: a 3-dimensional data
analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010. 137(2): p. 168 e1-8; discussion 168-9.
Letzer, G.M. and J.H. Kronman, A posteroanterior cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial
asymmetry. Angle Orthod, 1967. 37(3): p. 205-11.
Peck, S., L. Peck, and M. Kataja, Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod,
1991. 61(1): p. 43-8.
Shah, S.M. and M.R. Joshi, An assessment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle
Orthod, 1978. 48(2): p. 141-8.
Epker, N.B., P.J. Stella, and C.L. Fish, Dentofacial Deformities Integrated Orthodontic and Surgical
Correction. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. 1994: Mosby.
Masuoka, N., et al., Can cephalometric indices and subjective evaluation be consistent for facial
asymmetry? Angle Orthod, 2005. 75(4): p. 651-5.
Farkas, L.G., Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: past, present, and future. Cleft Palate
Craniofac J, 1996. 33(1): p. 10-8; discussion 19-22.
Yamashita, Y., et al., Asymmetry of the lips of orthognathic surgery patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop, 2009. 136(4): p. 559-63.
Haraguchi, S., Y. Iguchi, and K. Takada, Asymmetry of the face in orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod,
2008. 78(3): p. 421-6.
Edler, R.J., et al., Quantitative use of photography in orthognathic outcome assessment. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg, 2011. 49(2): p. 121-6.
Edler, R., D. Wertheim, and D. Greenhill, Clinical and computerized assessment of mandibular
asymmetry. Eur J Orthod, 2001. 23(5): p. 485-94.
Edler, R., D. Wertheim, and D. Greenhill, Mandibular outline assessment in three groups of
orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod, 2002. 24(6): p. 605-14.
Edler, R., D. Wertheim, and D. Greenhill, Comparison of radiographic and photographic measurement
of mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2003. 123(2): p. 167-74.
Edler, R., D. Wertheim, and D. Greenhill, Outcome measurement in the correction of mandibular
asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2004. 125(4): p. 435-43.
Good, S., et al., A computerized photographic assessment of the relationship between skeletal
discrepancy and mandibular outline asymmetry. Eur J Orthod, 2006. 28(2): p. 97-102.
Bishara, S.E., P.S. Burkey, and J.G. Kharouf, Dental and facial asymmetries: a review. Angle Orthod,
1994. 64(2): p. 89-98.
Gateno, J., J.J. Xia, and J.F. Teichgraeber, Effect of facial asymmetry on 2-dimensional and 3dimensional cephalometric measurements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011. 69(3): p. 655-62.
Trpkova, B., et al., Assessment of facial asymmetries from posteroanterior cephalograms: validity of
reference lines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2003. 123(5): p. 512-20.