ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2020
A Comparison of 3D Facial Features in a Population from Zimbabwe and United States.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D Photogrammetry-Driven Craniofacial Analysis in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Recent Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Facial Morphometrics in Black Celebrities: Contemporary Facial Analysis Using an Artificial Intelligence Platform.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study to Determine and Compare the Craniofacial Anthropometric Norms in a Selected Kenyan and Chinese Population.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Soft-Tissue Analysis of Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns Using the Geometric Morphometric Method.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Age- and Sex-Related Changes in Labial Dimensions of Sudanese Youngs of Arab Descent: A Three-Dimensional Cross-Sectional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Anthropometric accuracy of three-dimensional average faces compared to conventional facial measurements.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the differences in three-dimensional (3D) facial features in a population from Zimbabwe and the United States. In addition, this study seeks to establish an average facial template of each population allowing clinicians to treat patients according to their cultural esthetic perceptions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree hundred one subjects from Zimbabwe and the United States were carefully selected and recruited for the study. Each subject presented with a normal facial profile, no asymmetries, and normal body mass index. The 3D images were captured using the 3dMD cameras. All images were further separated into male and female groups of the respective populations and imported to a dedicated software for analysis. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The 3D facial images were constructed using Rapidform 6 software to recreate a composite facial average for each group representing a male and female average 3D face of Zimbabwean (Zim) and United States origin.
resultsThe linear measurements showed that the maximum average distance between the Zim-M and Zim-F was 1.24 mm and the minimum distance between the African American (AA)-M and AA-F was 0.24 mm. This was the absolute distance. When the signed linear measurements were taken into consideration, the maximum average distance between Zim-F and AA-M was 1.22 mm and the least average distance between the Zim-M and AA-M was 0.22 mm. The absolute color histograms showed greatest similarity between the Zim-M and AA-M at 58% and the Zim-F had a 25 and 27% similarity with the AA-F and Zim-M, respectively.
conclusionThe Zim-F showed the most variable features with a broader face, prominent forehead, and retruded alar base compared with their male counterparts and the Zim-M showed a wider prominent malar/zygomatic region, and prominent lateral supraorbital regions. There was a high similarity of 58% between the Zim-M and the AA-M, with the Zim-M showing a more protrusive superciliary arches, and a lateral zygomatic region tapering to the root of the nose.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.