↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry

Overview of attention for article published in Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry
Published in
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40902-017-0123-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farhad B. Naini, Sarah Akram, Julia Kepinska, Umberto Garagiola, Fraser McDonald, David Wertheim

Abstract

The aim of this study is to validate a new three-dimensional craniofacial stereophotogrammetry imaging system (3dMDface) through comparison with manual facial surface anthropometry. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements using anthropometry vs. the 3dMDface system. Facial images using the new 3dMDface system were taken from six randomly selected subjects, sitting in natural head position, on six separate occasions each 1 week apart, repeated twice at each sitting. Exclusion criteria were excess facial hair, facial piercings and undergoing current dentofacial treatment. 3dMDvultus software allowed facial landmarks to be marked and measurements recorded. The same measurements were taken using manual anthropometry, using soluble eyeliner to pinpoint landmarks, and sliding and spreading callipers and measuring tape to measure distances. The setting for the investigation was a dental teaching hospital and regional (secondary and tertiary care) cleft centre. The main outcome measure was comparison of the craniofacial measurements using the two aforementioned techniques. The results showed good agreement between craniofacial measurements using the 3dMDface system compared with manual anthropometry. For all measurements, except chin height and labial fissure width, there was a greater variability with the manual method compared to 3D assessment. Overall, there was a significantly greater variability in manual compared with 3D assessments (p < 0.02). The 3dMDface system is validated for craniofacial measurements.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 19%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 51%
Sports and Recreations 5 14%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,477,045
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#27
of 70 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,595
of 316,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 70 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.