Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec:24 Suppl 2:84-91.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12539. Epub 2021 Oct 21.

Evaluation of an automated approach for facial midline detection and asymmetry assessment: A preliminary study

Affiliations

Evaluation of an automated approach for facial midline detection and asymmetry assessment: A preliminary study

Ebru Yurdakurban et al. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the level of agreement between the conventional method and a machine-learning approach to facial midline determination and asymmetry assessment.

Settings and sample population: The study included a total of 90 samples (53 females; 37 males) with different levels of mandibular asymmetry.

Materials and methods: Two researchers placed predefined soft tissue landmarks individually on selected facial frontal photographs and created 10 reference lines. The midsagittal line was determined as perpendicular to the midpoint of the bipupillary line, and the same two reference lines and facial landmarks were automatically determined by the software using machine-learning algorithms, and researchers created the other 8 reference lines using the facial landmarks that were determined automatically by the software. In the following stage, 2 linear and 10 angular measurements were made by a single researcher on 270 photographs, and the consistency and differences between the measurements were evaluated with a one-sample t test, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman Plots.

Results: The level of agreement of measurements between the researchers and the software was low for eight parameters (ICC˂0.70). The one-sample t test revealed that differences between the software and researcher measurements of lip canting and pronasale deviation were not statistically significantly different (P > .05). Aside from the body inclination difference in Group 3 (samples with a mandibular body inclination difference >6°), there was no clinically significant difference (˂3°) between the measurements of the two methods.

Conclusions: Machine-learning algorithms have the potential for clinical use in asymmetry assessment and midline determination and can help clinicians in a manual approach.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; facial asymmetry; machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG. Dental and facial asymmetries: a review. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:89-98.
    1. Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Freitas MPM. Facial asymmetry: a current review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20:110-125.
    1. Choi KY. Analysis of facial asymmetry. Arch Craniofacial Surg. 2015;16:1.
    1. Dahan J. A simple digital procedure to assess facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;122:110-116.
    1. Berssenbrügge P, Berlin NF, Kebeck G, et al. 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2014;42:e327-e334.

LinkOut - more resources