Abstract
This article compares most of the three-dimensional (3D) morphometric methods currently proposed by the technical literature to evaluate their morphological informative value, while applying them to a case study of five patients affected by the malocclusion pathology. The compared methods are: conventional cephalometric analysis (CCA), generalised Procrustes superimposition (GPS) with principal-components analysis (PCA), thin-plate spline analysis (TPS), multisectional spline (MS) and clearance vector mapping (CVM). The results show that MS provides more reliable and useful diagnostic information.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
