Write your message
Volume 8, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(2): 61-71 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Salvarzi E, Choobineh A, Jahangiri M, Keshavarzi S. Application of Digimizer Image Analysis Software In Facial Anthropometry. Iran J Ergon 2020; 8 (2) :61-71
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-724-en.html
1- M.Sc ergonomics, Student Research Committee, Ergonomics Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran
2- Professor, Research Center For Health Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , alrchoobin@sums.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor, Occupational Health Engineering Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Epidemiology Department, School Of Health, Shiraz University Of Medical Sciences,Shiraz, Iran
Abstract:   (6024 Views)
Introduction: Craniofacial anthropometry and anthropometric ratios are used in different sciences such as dentistry, medicine, oral and maxillofacial surgery, growth studies, plastic surgery, bioengineering and production of personal protective equipment. The purpose of this study is to introduce Digimizer software to measure facial dimensions and compare manual dimensional measurement and photoanthropometry with this software.
Methods: In This descriptive-analytical study 12 female students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences participated. Measurement of face dimensions of samples was done manually and by photographic methods and data analysis was performed with SPSS software version 19 and descriptive-analytical tests.
Results: From the ten dimensions of the measured dimensions, a significant difference was observed in the three dimensions of the Subnasal-Nasal Root Length (SNRL), Menton-Nasal Root Length (MNRL) (Face Length) and Bitragion-Menton Arc (TRMA) dimensions,(P <0.05 ). No significant differences were observed in other dimensions. The ICC (Intra Class Correlation) coefficient for both methods was obtained in the range of 0.56-0.94.
Conclusion: This study showed that the use of Digimizer software can replace the use of manual method in measuring the dimensions of the face and in the preparation of anthropometric database of the face in less time is preferable to the manual method.
Full-Text [PDF 429 kb]   (7946 Downloads) |   |   Extended Abstract (HTML)  (1685 Views)  
This study showed that the use of Digimizer software can replace the use of manual method in measuring the dimensions of the face and in the preparation of anthropometric database of the face in less time is preferable to the manual method.
Type of Study: Review | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2020/06/6 | Accepted: 2020/08/23 | ePublished: 2020/08/25

1. Pheasant S. Body space: Human, Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. Translator: Choobineh A, Mououdi Ma. 5nd ed. Tehran: Mad Publishers; 2013. [Google Scholar]
2. Mououdi M. Editor Anthropometry: Subjects, Applications and necessities. Proceedings of the national congress of anthropometry; 2010 May 13-15; Tehran, Iran. [Google Scholar]
3. Gnaneswaran V, Bishu Rr. Anthropometry and hand performance evaluation of minority population. Int J Ind Ergon. 2011; 41(6):661-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.07.003]
4. García-Cáceres RG, Felknor S, Córdoba JE, Caballero JP, Barrero LH. Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the Bogota plateau. Int J Ind Ergon. 2012; 42(2):183-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.12.002]
5. Mosadegh RA. Relationship between nurses' knowledge about ergonomy and their job injuries. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci. 2004; 6(3):21-32 [Article] [Google Scholar]
6. Vink P. Editor. Comfort and Design: Principles And Good Practice. Baco Raton: Crc Press; 2005. [DOI:10.1201/9781420038132]
7. Elshennawy AK, Lee CH, Hines MI. Ergonomic issues in quality control. Comput Ind Eng. 1 St Ed. Engng, 1989; 17(1):514-8. [DOI:10.1016/0360-8352(89)90115-0]
8. Tayyari F, Smith J. Occupational Ergonomics: Principles and Applications. Amsterdam: Springer; 1997. [Google Scholar]
9. Brodie P, Moscrip M, Hutcheon M. Body Composition Measurement: A review of hydrodensitometry, anthropometry, and impedance methods. Nutr. 1998; 14(3):296-310. [DOI:10.1016/S0899-9007(97)00474-7]
10. Santos J, Albala C, Lera L, Garcia C, Arroyo P, Pérez-Bravo F, et al. Anthropometric measurements in the elderly population of Santiago, Chile. Nutr. 2004; 20(5):452-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2004.01.010] [PMID]
11. Zviagin V, Bakholdina V. Informative value of craniometric data for ethno-racial studies. Sud Med Ekspert. 2008; 51(4):8-12. [Google Scholar]
12. Relethford J. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am. J Phys Anthropol. 1994; 95(1):53-62. [DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330950105] [PMID]
13. Esmaeilzadeh M. Assessment of facial and cranial development in Shirvanian Kurmanj population based on the mean biometric factors from birth to maturity age. J Iran Anat Sci. 2010; 8:49-58. [Article] [Google Scholar]
14. Porter J, Olson K. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001; 3(3):191-7. [DOI:10.1001/archfaci.3.3.191] [PMID]
15. Farkas L, Katic M, Forrest C. Comparison of craniofacial measurements of young adult African-American and north American white males and females. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(6):692-8. [DOI:10.1097/01.sap.0000258954.55068.b4] [PMID]
16. Dianat I, Molenbroek J, Castellucci HI. A review of the methodology and applications of anthropometry in ergonomics and product design. Ergonomics. 2018; 61(12):1696-1720. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2018.1502817] [PMID]
17. Farkas, Leslie G. "Photogrammetry of the face anthropometry of the head and face." (1994). [Article]
18. Guyot L, Dubuc M, Richard O, Philip N, Dutour O. Comparison between direct clinical and digital photogrammetric measurements in patients with 22q11 microdeletion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32(3):246-52. [DOI:10.1054/ijom.2002.0379] [PMID]
19. Allanson JE. Objective techniques for craniofacial assessment: what are the choices? Am J Med Genet. 1997; 70(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19970502)70:1<1::AID-AJMG1>3.0.CO;2-3 [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19970502)70:13.0.CO;2-3]
20. Drillis R, Contini R, Bluestein M. Body segment parameters. Artif Limb. 1964; 8(1):44-66. [Article] [Google Scholar]
21. Ward R, Jamison P. Measurement precision and reliability in craniofacial anthropometry: implications and suggestions for clinical applications. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol Suppl. 1990; 11(3):156-64. [PMID] [Google Scholar]
22. Ras F, Habets L, Van Ginkel F, Prahl-Andersen B. Quantification of facial morphology using stereophotogrammetry- demonstration of a new concept. Int J Dent. 1996; 24(5):369-74. [DOI:10.1016/0300-5712(95)00081-X]
23. Habibi E, Soury S, Zadeh Ah. Precise evaluation of anthropometric 2d software processing of hand in comparison with direct method. J Med Signal Sens. 2013; 3(4):256-61. [DOI:10.4103/2228-7477.128338]
24. Diliberti JH, Olson DP. Photogrammetric evaluation in clinical genetics: theoretical considerations and experimental results. Am J Med Genet. 1991; 39(2):161-6. [DOI:10.1002/ajmg.1320390209] [PMID]
25. Han DH, Rhi J, Lee J. Development of prototypes of half-mask facepieces for Koreans using the 3D digitizing design method: a pilot study. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004; 48(8):707-14. [DOI]
26. Mahmoudi M. Validity of photoanthropometric method for clinical and objective description of facial structures. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci Health Serv. 2005; 33:65-72. [Article]
27. Monica P, Pedro M, Luıs G. Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers. Int J Ind Ergon 2005; 35(5):401-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.10.005]
28. Kim JH, Jung DJ, Kim HS, Kim CH, Kim TY. Analysis of the development of the nasal septum and measurement of the harvestable septal cartilage in Koreans using three-dimensional facial bone computed tomography scanning. Arch Plast Surg. 2014; 41(2):163-70. [DOI:10.5999/aps.2014.41.2.163] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Joe PS, Ito Y, Shih AM, Oestenstad RK, Lungu CT. Comparison of a novel surface laser scanning anthropometric technique to traditional methods for facial parameter measurements. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(2):81-88. [DOI:10.1080/15459624.2011.640557] [PMID]
30. Ettorre G, Weber M, Schaaf H, Lowry JC, Mommaerts MY, Howaldt HP. Standards for digital photography in cranio-maxillo-facial surgery-Part I: Basic views and guidelines. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 34(2):65-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2005.11.002] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |