Validity and reproducibility of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for the maxillofacial anthropometric measurement on cleft patients

  • Siti A. OthmanEmail author
  • Lyddia Saffai
  • Wan N. Wan Hassan
Original Article



To validate the accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of three-dimensional (3D) images and to compare the measurements with the direct anthropometry method on cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients.

Materials and methods

Nineteen linear facial measurements were derived from 16 standardized surface landmarks obtained from 37 cleft patients (20 males, 17 females; mean age 23.84 years, standard deviation ± 6.02). They were taken manually with calipers and were compared with the digitally calculated distance on the 3D images captured using the VECTRA-M5 360° Imaging System with pre-marked landmarks. Another pair of 19 linear measurements were computed on the 3D images 2 weeks apart for intra- and inter-observer agreements. Statistical analyses used were paired t test, the Bland-Altman analysis, and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) index.


Most of the linear measurements showed no statistically significant differences between the proposed method and direct anthropometry linear measurements. Nevertheless, bias of the 3D imaging system is present in the linear measurements of the nose width and the upper vermillion height. The measurements’ mean biases were within 2 mm, but the 95% limit of agreement was more than 2 mm. Intra- and inter-observer measurements generally showed good reproducibility. Four inter-observer measurements, the upper and lower face heights, nose width, and pronasale to left alar base were clinically significant.


Measurements obtained from this 3D imaging system are valid and reproducible for evaluating CLP patients.

Clinical relevance

The system is suitable to be used in a clinical setting for cleft patients. However, training of the operator is strictly advisable.


Orthodontics Oral and maxillofacial surgery Cleft lip and palate Three-dimensional analysis Accuracy Reproducibility 



We would like to thank Miss Najihah Lokman for her assistance in statistical analysis, Miss Roshahida Ahmad for her expertise in 3D imaging, and Madam Zuraini Ghazali, a representative from Cleft Lip and Palate Association of Malaysia (CLAPAM), who contributed to the enrolment of potential subjects.


This research was supported by the Postgraduate Research Fund by Coursework, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya (PPPC/C1-2015/DGD/21), and by the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant (UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/DENT/13).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards (IRB Reference Number: DF CD1410/0086(P)).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Othman SA, Ahmad R, Asi SM, Ismail NH, Rahman ZAA (2014) Three-dimensional quantitative evaluation of facial morphology in adults with unilateral cleft lip and palate, and patients without clefts. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52:208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krimmel M, Kluba S, Bacher M, Dietz K, Reinert S (2006) Digital surface photogrammetry for anthropometric analysis of the cleft infant face. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 43:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koo MS, Jung S, Park H, Oh HK, Ryu SY, Cho JH, Shin HK (2014) A comparison study of different facial soft tissue analysis methods. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 42:648–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dindaroğlu F, Kutlu P, Duran GS, Görgülü S, Aslan E (2016) Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry. Angle Orthod 86:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, Ren Y (2011) Evaluation of anthropometric accuracy and reliability using different three-dimensional scanning systems. Forensic Sci Int 207:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heike CL, Cunningham ML, Hing AV, Stuhaug E, Starr JR (2009) Picture perfect? Reliability of craniofacial anthropometry using three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:1261–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ort R, Metzler P, Kruse AL, Matthews F, Zemann W, Grätz KW, Luebbers HT (2012) The reliability of a three-dimensional photo system-(3dMDface-) based evaluation of the face in cleft lip infants. Plast Surg Int. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brons S, Darroudi A, Nada R, Bronkhorst EM, Vreeken R, Berge SJ, Maal T, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2018) Influence of involuntary facial expression on reproducibility of 3D stereophotogrammetry in children with and without complete unilateral cleft lip and palate from 3 to 18 months of age. Clin Oral Investig 23:1041–1050. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tse R, Booth L, Keys K, Saltzman B, Stuhaug E, Kapadia H, Heike C (2014) Reliability of nasolabial anthropometric measures using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry in infants with unrepaired unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:530e–542eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khambay B, Nairn N, Bell A, Miller J, Bowman A, Ayoub AF (2008) Validation and reproducibility of a high-resolution three-dimensional facial imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer-Marcotty P, Alpers GW, Gerdes ABM, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2010) Impact of facial asymmetry in visual perception: a 3-dimensional data analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:168.e1–168.e8Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asi SM, Ismail NH, Rahman ZA (2012) Validity and reliability evaluation of data acquisition using Vectra 3D compare to direct method. In Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES), 2012 IEEE EMBS Conference on (pp. 883-887). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zreaqat M, Hassan R, Halim AS (2012) Facial dimensions of Malay children with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate: a three dimensional analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:783–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A (1998) Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts CT, Richmond S (1997) The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 24:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Urbaniak GC, Plous S (2013) Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved on June 22, 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aynechi N, Larson BE, Leon-Salazar V, Beiraghi S (2011) Accuracy and precision of a 3D anthropometric facial analysis with and without landmark labeling before image acquisition. Angle Orthod 81:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farkas LG, Hajniš K, Posnick JC (1993) Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 30:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber DW, Fallis DW, Packer MD (2013) Three-dimensional reproducibility of natural head position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 143:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winder RJ, Darvann TA, McKnight W, Magee JD, Ramsay-Baggs P (2008) Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee JY, Han Q, Trotman CA (2004) Three-dimensional facial imaging: accuracy and considerations for clinical applications in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 74:587–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinberg SM, Naidoo S, Govier DP, Martin RA, Kane AA, Marazita ML (2006) Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. J Craniofac Surg 17:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wong JY, Oh AK, Ohta E, Hunt AT, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB, Deutsch CK (2008) Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 45:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Metzler P, Sun Y, Zemann W, Bartella A, Lehner M, Obwegeser JA, Lübbers HT (2014) Validity of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for cranio-maxillofacial anthropometric measurements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 18:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plooij JM, Swennen GRJ, Rangel FA, Maal TJJ, Schutyser FAC, Bronkhorst EM, Berge SJ (2009) Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghoddousi H, Edler R, Haers P, Wertheim D, Greenhill D (2007) Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2129–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aksu M, Kaya D, Kocadereli I (2010) Reliability of reference distance used in photogrammetry. Angle Orthod 80:670–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST (2009) Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malays. Singap Med J 50:525–528Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT (2005) Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A 15:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Loon B, Maal TJ, Plooij JM, Ingels KJ, Borstlap WA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Berge SJ (2010) 3D Stereophotogrammetric assessment of pre-and postoperative volumetric changes in the cleft lip and palate nose. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 39:534–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jayaratne YS, Deutsch CK, Zwahlen RA (2013) A 3D anthropometric analysis of the orolabial region in Chinese young adults. Bri J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:908–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP (2004) Current products and practices: applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part 1. J Orthod 31:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bartlett JW, Frost C (2008) Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:466–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Houstan WJ (1983) The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 83:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Othman SA, Ahmad R, Merican AF, Jamaludin M (2013) Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on facial images captured on a 3D camera. Aust Orthod J 29:58–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baysal A, Sahan AO, Ozturk MA, Uysal T (2016) Reproducibility and reliability of three-dimensional soft tissue landmark identification using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod 86:1004–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lippold C, Liu X, Wangdo K, Drerup B, Schreiber K, Kirschneck C, Tatjana M, Danesh G (2014) Facial landmark localization by curvature maps and profile analysis. Head Face Med 10:54. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry & Orthodontics, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Clinical Craniofacial Dentistry Research Group, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Bangsar Dental ClinicKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations