No universally accepted parameter exists for selecting maxillary central incisors (MCIs) relative to facial proportions. The purpose of this prospective clinical study was to determine the relationship between MCIs and facial height and width in adults, intersex differences, and measurement differences between right and left MCI. A prospective study was undertaken of 149 dental students (F:76; M:73) aged between 18 and 30 years. Anthropometric MCI and horizontal and vertical facial measurements were recorded with digital calipers by 1 operator. Correlation was investigated with Pearson correlation coefficients (α=.05). Two-sample t tests were used for intersex comparisons and paired t tests to compare right and left MCIs. Intraexaminer reliability was tested by remeasuring 25 participants and applying the Bland-Altman and Lin analyses. The mean MCI height was 10.28 mm (right and left) and the mean widths were 8.65 mm (right) and 8.66 mm (left). Intersex incisor differences existed for height measurements (M:F 0.54 mm [right], 0.46 mm [left]) and width measurements (M:F 0.26 mm) but not for width-to-height ratios (F=0.85; M=0.84). A mean ratio of 15.56 was found between bizygomatic width:tooth width (M=15.75, F=15.37) and of 17.93 between total face height:MCI height (M=17.97, F=17.89). Correlation coefficients were low for all tooth:face measurements. Intraexaminer reliability was clinically acceptable. Men had larger teeth and faces but similar width:height ratios. There was no significant size difference between right and left MCI, little individual relationship between tooth:face proportions, and insignificant sex influence. The "biometric ratio"' of 1:16 for MCI:bizygomatic width was not reconfirmed exactly. A ratio of 1:18 is proposed for MCI height to total face height (Tr-Me') and 1:12 for face height (N'-Me').

The aim of this study is to validate a new three-dimensional craniofacial stereophotogrammetry imaging system (3dMDface) through comparison with manual facial surface anthropometry. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements using anthropometry vs. the 3dMDface system. Facial images using the new 3dMDface system were taken from six randomly selected subjects, sitting in natural head position, on six separate occasions each 1 week apart, repeated twice at each sitting. Exclusion criteria were excess facial hair, facial piercings and undergoing current dentofacial treatment. 3dMDvultus software allowed facial landmarks to be marked and measurements recorded. The same measurements were taken using manual anthropometry, using soluble eyeliner to pinpoint landmarks, and sliding and spreading callipers and measuring tape to measure distances. The setting for the investigation was a dental teaching hospital and regional (secondary and tertiary care) cleft centre. The main outcome measure was comparison of the craniofacial measurements using the two aforementioned techniques. The results showed good agreement between craniofacial measurements using the 3dMDface system compared with manual anthropometry. For all measurements, except chin height and labial fissure width, there was a greater variability with the manual method compared to 3D assessment. Overall, there was a significantly greater variability in manual compared with 3D assessments (p < 0.02). The 3dMDface system is validated for craniofacial measurements.