CT-Based Measurements of Facial Parameters of Healthy Children and Adolescents in Thailand

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Farkas LG,
   3. Katic MJ,
   4. Forrest CR

   . Comparison of craniofacial measurements of young adult African-American and North American white males and females. Ann Plast Surg 2007;59:692–98 doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000258954.55068.b4 pmid:18046155

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Patil SB,
   3. Kale SM,
   4. Math M, et al

   . Anthropometry of the eyelid and palpebral fissure in an Indian population. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31:290–94 doi:10.1177/1090820X11398475 pmid:21385738

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Richards CG

   . Frontoethmoidal meningoencephalocele: a common and severe congenital abnormality in South East Asia. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:717–19 doi:10.1136/adc.67.6.717 pmid:1626991

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Dumrongpisutikul N,
   3. Triampo A,
   4. Janthanimi P, et al

   . Incidence of associated brain and ophthalmic anomalies in frontoethmoidal encephalomeningocele evaluated by multidetector computed tomography facial bone imaging. J Craniofac Surg 2017;28:454–58 doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003357 pmid:28045833

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Meling TR,
   3. Due-Tønnessen BJ,
   4. Helseth E, et al

   . Frontoethmoidal meningoencephaloceles. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2000;120:2250–52 pmid:10997082

   PubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Chowchuen B,
   3. Thanapaisal C,
   4. Chowchuen P, et al

   . Frontoethmoidal meningoencephalocele: challenges and the Tawanchai center’s long-term integrated management. J Med Assoc Thai 2011;94(Suppl):S129–40 pmid:22423428

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Harris R,
   3. Nagarkar P,
   4. Amirlak B

   . Varied definitions of nasolabial angle: searching for consensus among rhinoplasty surgeons and an algorithm for selecting the ideal method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4:e752 doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000729 pmid:27482491

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Le TT,
   3. Farkas LG,
   4. Ngim RCK, et al

   . Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002;26:64–69 doi:10.1007/s00266-001-0033-7 pmid:11891603

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Farkas LG,
   3. Tompson BD,
   4. Katic MJ, et al

   . Differences between direct (anthropometric) and indirect (cephalometric) measurements of the skull. J Craniofac Surg 2002;13:105–10; discussion 109–10 doi:10.1097/00001665-200201000-00024 pmid:11887005

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Park DH,
    3. Choi WS,
    4. Yoon SH, et al

    . Anthropometry of Asian eyelids by age. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:1405–13 doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000304608.33432.67 pmid:18349663

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Laestadius ND,
    3. Aase JM,
    4. Smith DW

    . Normal inner canthal and outer orbital dimensions. J Pediatr 1969;74:465–68 doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(69)80206-4 pmid:5764779

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Pool GM,
    3. Didier RA,
    4. Bardo D, et al

    . Computed tomography-generated anthropometric measurements of orbital relationships in normal infants and children. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2016;18:201–06 doi:10.3171/2016.2.PEDS15475 pmid:27129093

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Farkas LG,
    3. Hreczko TM,
    4. Katic MJ, et al

    . Proportion indices in the craniofacial regions of 284 healthy North American white children between 1 and 5 years of age. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14:13–28 doi:10.1097/00001665-200301000-00004 pmid:12544216

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Matteson SR,
    3. Bechtold W,
    4. Phillips C, et al

    . A method for three-dimensional image reformation for quantitative cephalometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:1053–61 doi:10.1016/0278-2391(89)90180-8 pmid:2795298

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Christiansen EL,
    3. Thompson JR,
    4. Kopp S

    . Intra- and inter-observer variability and accuracy in the determination of linear and angular measurements in computed tomography: an in vitro and in situ study of human mandibles. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:221–29 doi:10.3109/00016358608997724 pmid:3465194

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Waitzman AA,
    3. Posnick JC,
    4. Armstrong DC, et al

    . Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: part I. Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:112–17 doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1992_029_0112_csmboc_2.3.co_2 pmid:1571344

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    2. Farkas LG

    . Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: past, present, and future. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996;33:10–18; discussion 19–22 doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1996_033_0010_aoampp_2.3.co_2 pmid:8849854

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Richtsmeier JT,
    3. Paik CH,
    4. Elfert PC, et al

    . Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1995;32:217–27 doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0217_pravot_2.3.co_2 pmid:7605789

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Gupta V,
    3. Prabhakar A,
    4. Yadav M, et al

    . Computed tomography imaging-based normative orbital measurement in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019;67:659–63 doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1187_18 pmid:31007233

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Chatdokmaiprai C,
    3. Kiranantawat K,
    4. Lertsithichai P, et al

    . Normative data of the interorbital distance in Thai population. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:1939–44 doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005050 pmid:30234716

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Erian A,
    2. Shiffman MA

    2. Prendergast PM

    . Facial proportions. In: Erian A, Shiffman MA, eds. Advanced Surgical Facial Rejuvenation. New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2012:15–22
22. 22.↵
    2. Farkas LG,
    3. Katic MJ,
    4. Forrest CR, et al

    . International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16:615–46 doi:10.1097/01.scs.0000171847.58031.9e pmid:16077306

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Freihofer HP

    . Inner intercanthal and interorbital distances. J Maxillofac Surg 1980;8:324–26 doi:10.1016/S0301-0503(80)80121-4 pmid:6936515

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Méhes K,
    3. Kitzvéger E

    . Inner canthal and intermamillary indices in the newborn infant. J Pediatr 1974;85:90–92 doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(74)80295-7 pmid:4852493

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Othman SA,
    3. Majawit LP,
    4. Wan Hassan WN, et al

    . Anthropometric study of three-dimensional facial morphology in Malay adults. PLoS One 2016;11:e0164180 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164180 pmid:27706220

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Palmert MR,
    3. Dunkel L

    . Clinical practice. Delayed puberty. N Engl J Med 2012;366:443–53 doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1109290 pmid:22296078

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Ferrario VF,
    3. Sforza C,
    4. Poggio CE, et al

    . Craniofacial growth: a three-dimensional soft-tissue study from 6 years to adulthood. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 1998;18:138–49 pmid:9785218

    PubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Preece MA

    . Standardization of growth. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl 1989;78:57–64; discussion 81–83 doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.1989.tb17170.x pmid:2665420

    CrossRefPubMed