Content uploaded by Dirk Vandermeulen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dirk Vandermeulen on Mar 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Large-scale in-vivo Caucasian facial soft tissue thickness database
for craniofacial reconstruction
S. De Greef
a
, P. Claes
b
, D. Vandermeulen
b
, W. Mollemans
b
, P. Suetens
b
, G. Willems
a,
*
a
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Medicine, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery,
Forensic Dentistry, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
b
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculties of Engineering and Medicine, Medical Image Computing,
ESAT & Radiology, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
Available online 23 March 2006
Abstract
A large-scale study of facial soft tissue depths of Caucasian adults was conducted. Over a 2-years period, 967 Caucasian subjects of both sexes,
varying age and varying body mass index (BMI) were studied. A user-friendly and mobile ultrasound-based system was used to measure, in about
20 min per subject, the soft tissue thickness at 52 facial landmarks including most of the landmarks used in previous studies. This system was
previously validated on repeatability and accuracy [S. De Greef, P. Claes, W. Mollemans, M. Loubele, D. Vandermeulen, P. Suetens, G. Willems,
Semi-automated ultrasound facial soft tissue depth registration: method and validation. J. Forensic Sci. 50 (2005)]. The data of 510 women and 457
men were analyzed in order to update facial soft tissue depth charts of the contemporary Caucasian adult. Tables with the average thickness values
for each landmark as well as the standard deviation and range, tabulated according to gender, age and BMI are reported. In addition, for each
landmark and for both sexes separately, a multiple linear regression of thickness versus age and BMI is calculated. The lateral asymmetry of the
face was analysed on an initial subset of 588 subjects showing negligible differences and thus warranting the unilateral measurements of the
remaining subjects. The new dataset was statistically compared to three datasets for the Caucasian adults: the traditional datasets of Rhine and
Moore [J.S. Rhine, C.E. Moore, Tables of facial tissue thickness of American Caucasoids in forensic anthropology. Maxwell Museum Technical
series 1 (1984)] and Helmer [R. Helmer, Scha
¨delidentifizierung durch elektronische bildmischung, Kriminalistik Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, 1984]
together with the most recent in vivo study by Manhein et al. [M.H. Manhein, G.A. Listi, R.E. Barsley, R. Musselman, N.E. Barrow, D.H.
Ubelbaker, In vivo facial tissue depth measurements for children and adults. J. Forensic Sci. 45 (2000) 48–60]. The large-scale database presented
in this paper offers a denser sampling of the facial soft tissue depths of a more representative subset of the actual Caucasian population over the
different age and body posture subcategories. This database can be used as an updated chart for manual and computer-based craniofacial
approximation and allows more refined analyses of the possible factors affecting facial soft tissue depth.
#2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anthropology; Human identification; Cranio-facial approximation; Facial soft tissue depth data
1. Introduction
The main purpose of any forensic facial approximation is to
recreate the face of a deceased at the time of death based on his/
her skull. Although a corpse represents a tremendous source of
information to the forensic pathologist, odontologist and
anthropologist, even a multidisciplinary forensic analysis
cannot always guarantee a final positive identification. Indeed,
the most extended and detailed post-mortem data are useless
without any link to the ante-mortem data. In these cases,
forensic facial approximation can be considered as a last resort
to trigger the identification process. Publication of the
reconstructed face will hopefully stimulate recognition by
relatives and allow further comparative analysis to be carried
out for establishing the identity.
Since the first attempts in the late 19th century, different
two- and three-dimensional, manual or computer-aided
reconstruction techniques have been developed [5–9].The
majority of them are based on two components. Besides the
various rules of thumb for a correct positioning of eyes, ears,
www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146
* Corresponding author at: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Med-
icine, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Depart-
ment of Forensic Odontology, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 16 332459; fax: +32 16 337578.
E-mail address: Guy.willems@med.kuleuven.be (G. Willems).
0379-0738/$ – see front matter #2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.034
nose and mouth, tissue depth tables are used to obtain a best
estimate of the facial outline.
Over the past years some studies were performed to
critically re-evaluate the rules of thumb and to propose new
ones [10–17]. Research on facial tissue depths mainly focussed
on children and adolescents [18–22], while studies on adults
were rather ‘‘small scale’’ [4,23]. Some new measurement
methods were proposed [24–26] and ideas developed within the
computer graphics area were applied to expand the tissue depth
landmarks to the complete head [27,28]. Two databases are
currently used for the Caucasian model: the American cadaver
study of Rhine and Moore [2] and the German in vivo study of
Helmer [3]. Both were performed on a rather small number of
subjects (N= 73 (Rhine and Moore) and N= 123 (Helmer)).
The measurements are tabulated based on gender and further
subdivided according to body build (Rhine and Moore) and age
(Helmer), but not both simultaneously. Numerous authors have
questioned the use of cadaver populations for tissue depth
studies as well as the limited number of subjects in the existing
studies in order to be representative for a specific population.
The aim of the present study was to improve the representative
quality of the sampling over different subcategories, such as
gender, age and BMI by performing a large scale in vivo study.
Furthermore, this extensive sampling will also allow a more
refined analysis of the possible factors affecting soft tissue
depth and could provide the necessary data to develop a
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S127
Fig. 1. (a) Facial landmarks and (b) skull landmarks.
statistical model that can be used in computer-based
craniofacial approximation methods [29].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Measurement protocol
Different state-of-the-art measurement technologies have
been used in former studies to accurately measure facial soft
tissue depths. The low cost and accessibility of ultrasound
systems, free of radiation exposure and allowing measurements
in an upright position appeared to be most appropriate. For the
present study, we used a system composed of a portable computer
connected to an Epoch 4b
1
ultrasound A-mode scanner
(Panametrics, Waltham, USA). The selection of a very small
(6 mm diameter) cylindrical, 10 MHz transducer, allowed sub-
millimetre precise measurements with minimal indentation of
the surrounding tissue. An interface program (Matlab, The
Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA)was developed to shorten the
measurement procedure by partially automating the tissue depth
acquisition, data transfer and storage.
Ten bilateral landmarks were added to the traditional facial
landmarks of Rhine and Moore, bringing the total number of
landmarks to 52, 10 located on the midline and 21 located
bilaterally. The selection of these landmarks was based on their
presence in former ultrasound studies, but also on the ability to
reliably locate them in a standardised way on the face (Table 1;
Fig. 1a and b).
Every landmark was measured three times, taking care not to
indent the facial soft tissues. The transducer orientation was
interactively determined such that the highest peak, correspond-
ing to the most perpendicular position of the transducer to the
bone, was obtained. Of the three thickness measurements, the
largest one, corresponding to minimal soft tissue compression,
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S128
Table 1
Landmark number, name and description
Midline
1 Supraglabella Most anterior point on midline
2 Glabella Crosspoint between midline and supraorbital line
3 Nasion Midpoint of the fronto-nasal suture
4 End of nasal Passage between bone and cartrilage of the nose
5 Mid-philtrum Centered between nose and mouth on midline
6 Upper lip Midline on the upperlip
7 Lower lip Midline on the lower lip
8 Chin–lip fold Midline centered in fold chin, below lips
9 Mental eminence Centered on forward most projecting point of chin
10 Beneath chin The vertical measure of the soft tissue on the
lower edge of the chin
Left/Right Bilateral
32/11 Frontal eminence Centered on eyepupil, most anterior point of the forehead
33/12 Supraorbital Centered on eyepupil, just above eyebrow
34/13 Lateral glabella Junction of the frontal, maxillary, and lacrimal bones on the
medial bone of the orbit
35/14 Lateral nasal Side of the bridge of the nose, horizontal just above the end of
nasal on a vertical line with the inner canthus of the eye
36/15 Suborbital Centered on eyepupil, just under inferior orbita margin
37/16 Inferior malar Centered on the eyepupil, just under the zygomatic process
38/17 Lateral nostril Next to the most lateral point of the ala nasi
39/18 Naso-labial ridge The prominence next to the Mid-philtrum
40/19 Supra canina Vertically lined up with the cheilion, on the horizontal
level of the Mid-philtrum
41/20 Sub canina Vertically lined up with the cheilion, on the horizontal
level of the Chin-lip fold
42/21 Mental tubercle anterior Most prominent point on the lateral bulge of the chin mound
43/22 Mid lateral orbit Vertically centered on the orbit, next to the lateral orbit border
44/23 Supraglenoid Root of the zygomatic arch just before the ear
45/24 Zygomatic arch Maximum, most lateral curvature of the zygomatic bone
46/25 Lateral orbit Lined up with the lateral border of the eye on the center of
the zygomatic process
47/26 Supra M2 Cheek region, lateral: lined up with bottom of nose; vertical:
lined up beneath lateral border of the eye
48/27 Mid masseter Middle of the masseter, the halfway point between the
supraglenoid and the gonion
49/28 Occlusal line Border of the masseter,on vertical level of the cheilion
50/29 Sub M2 Below the second molar on horizontally lined up with Supra M2
51/30 Gonion At the angle of the mandible
52/31 Mid mandibular Inferior border of the mandible, vertically lined up with Supra M2
was retained. Landmarks in the area of dental prostheses,
moustaches or beards, which could interfere with the measure-
ments, were skipped for these subjects. The lateral nasal
landmark was skipped for subjects wearing spectacles, because
of the possible permanent deformation of the soft tissues at that
point. The measurements were obtained with the subject in a
seated position with a neutral, relaxed, facial expression. The
measurement protocol was evaluated for repeatability and, in
contrast to the older studies, also for accuracy compared to a gold
standard (X-ray Computed Tomography). A detailed description
of the complete acquisition protocol and its validation are part of
a previous publication [1].
Exactly 1000 volunteers were recruited on an arbitrary basis
and measured using the procedure described above. After we
excluded the non-Caucasians and minors, the studied population
consisted of 457 males and 510 females. An initial subset of 588
subjects was measured bilaterally, the remaining subjects were
measured unilaterally on the right side of the face.
2.2. Statistical analysis
Several statistical analyses were carried out on the facial soft
tissue depth data obtained. Similar to the traditional databases
of facial soft tissue depths for the adult Caucasian model, we
report standard summary statistics such as average, standard
deviation and ranges of soft tissue thickness for each landmark
per chosen subcategory. In contrast to previous studies, we
extend the hypothesized important subcategories to gender, age
and body mass index (BMI). Indeed, the tables of Helmer are
subdivided according to gender and age, but not according to
body posture whereas the tables of Rhine and Moore are
subdivided according to gender and body posture but not
according to age. Furthermore, in the latter study, body posture
is based on visual assessment of the subjects which is subjective
and, hence, not reproducible.
Besides reporting the measurements per subcategory, we
also calculate for each landmark a gender-specific robust
multiple linear regression [30] of soft tissue thickness versus
age and BMI. For the bilateral landmarks the averages of left
and right measurements were used in the regression.
Several statistical hypothesis tests were carried out to test for
bilateral symmetry. Contralateral soft tissue measurements
were compared using a paired t-test (assuming normal
distributions), a Wilcoxon paired signed rank test (relaxing
the normality assumption of the underlying distribution as well
as being more robust to outliers) and by comparing the median
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S129
Table 2a
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult females between 18 and 29 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (56) 20–25 (149) >25 (29)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.9 0.6 2.8 5.3 56 4.1 0.6 2.9 6.0 127 4.5 0.7 3.4 6.2 29
2 Glabella 4.9 0.7 3.3 6.5 56 5.1 0.8 3.4 7.5 127 5.5 0.8 4.3 7.7 29
3 Nasion 5.9 1.3 2.4 8.7 56 6.3 1.2 4.0 9.4 127 6.4 1.2 4.6 8.3 29
4 End of nasal 2.5 0.6 1.7 6.1 56 2.6 0.8 1.6 9.2 127 3.0 0.7 2.2 4.7 29
5 Mid-philtrum 10.0 1.6 5.8 13.7 56 9.8 1.6 2.6 13.6 126 9.8 2.0 6.8 16.5 28
6 Upper lip margin 9.8 2.1 5.9 18.6 56 10.0 1.7 5.6 13.8 126 9.8 2.0 4.6 13.7 28
7 Lower lip margin 10.9 1.9 7.4 15.0 56 11.0 2.0 6.9 15.5 127 10.8 2.2 5.8 15.0 28
8 Chin–lip fold 9.5 1.0 7.4 11.9 55 9.6 1.0 7.2 12.2 127 9.7 1.3 7.1 12.2 29
9 Mental eminence 9.1 1.5 6.2 12.4 56 9.6 1.7 6.7 14.3 127 11.0 1.9 6.4 15.0 29
10 Beneath chin 5.6 1.1 3.7 8.9 56 5.6 1.3 3.3 10.2 126 7.1 1.5 5.0 12.0 28
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.8 0.5 2.7 5.2 56 3.9 0.6 2.7 6.1 127 4.5 0.6 3.6 5.9 29
33/12 Supraorbital 5.1 0.8 3.7 7.0 56 5.4 1.0 3.8 10.9 127 6.1 0.7 5.2 8.5 29
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.7 1.0 3.7 8.6 56 5.7 1.1 2.8 9.0 127 5.7 1.4 3.6 10.1 28
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.9 0.6 2.7 5.6 49 3.7 0.6 2.1 5.2 110 3.7 0.8 2.4 5.7 21
36/15 Suborbital 9.3 2.2 3.6 15.1 56 9.4 2.1 3.3 14.2 127 10.3 2.4 4.4 14.9 29
37/16 Inferior malar 16.2 2.9 10.8 23.2 56 17.9 2.7 10.6 25.1 127 20.3 2.0 17.2 23.6 28
38/17 Lateral nostril 9.6 1.1 7.2 12.8 56 9.5 1.3 5.8 12.6 127 9.4 1.8 4.9 13.1 29
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 10.1 1.7 5.9 14.0 55 9.5 1.6 3.5 12.9 126 10.0 2.1 6.1 16.6 29
40/19 Supra canina 9.6 1.9 5.5 14.9 56 9.5 1.9 5.3 15.2 127 9.2 1.9 6.2 12.7 29
41/20 Sub canina 10.3 1.6 6.5 13.9 56 10.3 1.5 6.7 14.8 127 10.9 1.8 8.0 14.4 29
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 9.3 1.4 6.1 12.5 56 9.6 1.6 5.5 13.4 127 10.7 1.7 7.5 14.0 29
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.8 0.7 3.6 6.2 56 5.0 1.1 3.5 10.3 126 5.0 1.0 3.8 7.4 29
44/23 Supraglenoid 9.3 2.1 3.4 13.4 56 9.6 2.2 3.4 13.9 126 10.3 1.9 7.4 14.3 29
45/24 Zygomatic arch 6.1 1.4 3.9 8.8 56 6.9 1.5 3.6 11.3 126 8.7 1.9 4.9 12.2 29
46/25 Lateral orbit 9.4 1.5 6.3 12.4 56 10.0 1.7 6.4 15.4 126 12.6 2.2 8.7 16.9 29
47/26 Supra-M2 25.8 3.9 6.4 32.2 56 26.6 3.8 10.1 33.6 126 29.2 3.6 20.2 37.8 29
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 16.5 3.0 8.0 21.1 56 17.2 3.5 4.5 24.0 126 17.7 3.9 8.6 23.6 29
49/28 Occlusal line 18.8 2.4 8.3 25.2 56 19.4 2.0 15.1 24.4 126 22.0 2.7 16.9 28.6 29
50/29 Sub-M2 18.5 2.7 12.0 24.9 56 19.0 3.1 10.4 27.1 126 21.5 3.3 15.8 28.5 29
51/30 Gonion 13.8 2.3 9.4 19.4 56 14.4 2.6 7.0 21.4 126 16.7 2.7 11.8 24.4 29
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 10.7 2.2 6.6 15.3 56 11.4 2.4 4.3 17.6 126 14.2 2.0 11.0 18.8 29
of the differences for each landmark to the confidence interval
for the medians calculated using a resampling-with-replace-
ment bootstrapping technique [31].
We also compared the new database with the traditional
datasets of Rhine and Moore [2], Helmer [3] and the more
recently performed Manhein et al. study [4]. Since the raw data
of these studies were not available, we restricted the analysis to
a comparison of our measurements to the mean and median
values reported. More specifically, for the Helmer study, a
Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed. It tests the
hypothesis that our data originates from distributions with
medians equal to the corresponding medians reported in the
Helmer study. Alternatively we also test if the median values of
our study fall within the 95% confidence intervals for the
median as reported by Helmer. For the Rhine and Moore and
Manhein studies, a t-test was performed to test the hypothesis
that our data originates from distributions with means equal to
the means reported in these studies. Corresponding age
categories between the current study and the former studies
were compared and Body Mass Index ranges (BMI <20,
20 <BMI <25, 25 <BMI) were defined to correspond to the
slender, normal and obese subcategories, respectively, used as
body build criteria in the Rhine and Moore study. For each of
the comparative studies we performed a two-way ANOVA test
to verify the influence of the different subcategories (gender
and age or body posture).
For some of the comparative analyses we also provide a
graphical representation of the results. We first define a facial
template by averaging 3D facial surfaces of 118 subjects using
the procedure proposed by Claes et al. [32]. We define the
average skeletal landmark positions by setting out the average
(over all subjects in our database) tissue depth per landmark
inwards and perpendicular to the surface at the associated skin
landmark. This represents a gender-, age- and BMI-unspecific
baseline of skeletal landmark positions. The effect on the facial
outlook of a certain choice of tissue depths can then be
visualized by reconstructing the skin landmarks from the
reference skeletal landmarks at a distance equal to the soft
tissue depths along the same normal but now in the direction of
the facial surface. The average facial template is then deformed
to interpolate these new skin landmark positions. This gives us
an overall impression of the facial outlook for that particular
choice of landmarks. Two such outlooks for two different sets
of tissue depths can then be compared by showing the signed
distance between the two reconstructed surfaces as a color scale
coded texture on the average of the two surfaces.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S130
Table 2b
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult females between 30 and 39 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (12) 20–25 (40) >25 (20)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.7 0.5 3.0 4.9 12 4.1 0.5 3.2 5.3 40 4.5 0.5 3.4 5.9 20
2 Glabella 4.2 0.6 3.1 4.9 12 4.9 0.7 3.5 6.5 40 5.4 0.7 4.4 7.0 20
3 Nasion 5.4 0.9 4.0 7.1 12 6.2 1.4 3.8 11.0 40 6.6 1.4 4.2 8.8 20
4 End of nasal 2.7 0.7 1.9 4.2 12 2.5 0.6 1.6 4.7 40 3.0 0.8 1.8 4.8 20
5 Mid-philtrum 8.7 1.0 7.0 10.1 12 9.2 1.6 6.2 13.3 40 8.8 1.3 6.6 11.6 20
6 Upper lip margin 9.2 1.4 7.3 11.8 12 9.4 1.7 6.5 14.0 39 9.5 1.3 7.0 11.5 18
7 Lower lip margin 10.1 1.3 7.9 11.6 12 10.7 1.9 6.8 16.3 39 11.1 2.1 6.5 16.2 19
8 Chin–lip fold 8.7 1.2 7.1 10.9 12 10.2 1.7 7.2 17.5 40 10.4 0.9 8.6 12.0 20
9 Mental eminence 8.9 1.4 6.5 10.7 12 9.7 1.7 7.2 14.4 40 11.5 1.7 9.6 15.9 20
10 Beneath chin 5.9 1.8 4.6 10.9 12 5.7 1.4 3.7 9.4 38 7.6 2.1 4.1 12.1 20
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.7 0.7 3.0 5.2 12 4.0 0.5 3.0 5.2 40 4.6 0.5 3.6 5.8 20
33/12 Supraorbital 4.7 0.7 3.6 6.1 12 5.2 0.6 3.8 6.7 40 6.3 0.8 5.5 8.5 20
34/13 Lateral glabella 4.9 0.9 3.2 6.3 12 5.5 1.4 3.2 9.4 40 6.6 1.0 4.1 8.3 20
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.7 0.7 2.7 5.0 11 3.6 0.7 2.0 5.4 36 3.8 0.7 3.0 5.8 16
36/15 Suborbital 7.9 1.8 3.8 10.6 12 9.3 2.9 3.1 16.1 40 10.5 2.0 7.7 15.0 20
37/16 Inferior malar 15.0 2.1 11.2 19.3 12 17.4 3.4 10.4 24.8 40 21.0 3.6 14.0 27.8 20
38/17 Lateral nostril 8.3 1.6 5.9 11.0 12 8.8 1.2 6.0 11.2 40 9.0 1.2 7.6 11.6 20
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 8.5 1.3 6.7 11.2 12 9.4 1.6 6.5 14.7 38 9.3 1.2 6.1 11.6 20
40/19 Supra canina 8.5 1.7 5.0 11.7 12 8.4 1.9 3.7 12.7 39 8.7 1.6 6.4 13.3 20
41/20 Sub canina 8.7 1.6 6.4 11.9 12 9.9 1.6 6.7 13.4 39 10.8 1.6 7.8 13.7 20
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 9.1 1.4 6.7 11.7 12 9.9 1.3 7.5 13.1 40 11.0 1.6 8.3 14.4 20
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.6 0.8 3.8 6.1 12 4.7 0.9 3.6 7.6 40 5.4 1.1 3.8 7.9 20
44/23 Supraglenoid 7.7 2.6 3.8 12.3 12 8.8 2.1 4.5 13.2 40 9.9 2.9 5.2 16.0 20
45/24 Zygomatic arch 5.6 1.2 3.8 7.6 12 6.8 1.8 3.8 11.0 40 8.7 2.4 5.6 15.8 20
46/25 Lateral orbit 7.9 1.3 6.4 10.3 12 9.7 2.2 5.8 13.9 40 12.5 1.7 10.0 16.3 20
47/26 Supra-M2 23.1 3.1 18.2 29.3 12 25.6 3.5 17.8 36.7 38 28.7 2.8 25.3 35.4 19
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 14.1 2.8 8.6 17.5 12 16.8 2.5 10.3 21.8 40 19.8 3.1 12.7 26.2 20
49/28 Occlusal line 17.5 1.1 15.4 19.1 12 18.8 2.0 15.0 24.9 40 21.5 2.6 17.8 26.6 20
50/29 Sub-M2 15.7 1.7 12.8 18.8 11 18.1 3.0 12.9 26.5 38 20.2 2.7 15.8 25.6 19
51/30 Gonion 13.4 1.8 10.9 16.2 12 14.2 2.6 10.3 22.2 40 17.6 2.5 13.8 24.1 20
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 10.0 1.9 7.9 14.5 12 11.0 2.1 7.8 17.0 39 14.8 2.7 11.0 23.3 20
All tests were implemented using the Matlab7R14 (The
Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) data analysis software.
3. Results
Tables 2(a–e) and 3(a–e) report the soft tissue depth results
of the right side of the face for females and males. The
measurements are presented in millimetres and rounded to one
fractional digit. They provide the soft tissue depth means,
standard deviations and range as well as the number of involved
subjects in the analysis of the 31 landmarks. The two gender-
specific populations are further subdivided according to age and
BMI. The distribution of the 967 subjects over the different
subpopulations and the average BMI and age per subcategory is
shown in Table 4. Note that the subpopulations with a BMI less
than 20 are relatively small, especially the male subcategory,
this effect being even more pronounced for the older
subcategories.
Some initial observations can be made without any formal
statistical analysis. The largest averages, standard deviations
as well as measurement ranges can be observed at the
landmarks supra-M2, mid-masseter, sub-M2, inferior malar,
occlusal line and mid-mandibular angle. These landmarks are
all located in the cheek region, which is known from
previous studies to be highly variable in soft tissue thickness.
The maximum within-subpopulation standard deviation in
the female population is 4.06 mm at the sub-M2 point
whereas it is 5.28 mm at the mid-masseter point in the male
population. In general, the standard deviations in the male
population are higher than in the female population. Within
each age subpopulation, the averages per landmark seem to
increase with an increase in BMI. No such pronounced
singular effect can be observed for changes in age for fixed
BMI categories.
The age and BMI related effects are corroborated by the per
landmark and gender-specific robust, multiple, linear regres-
sion equations of the tissue depths versus age and BMI as
tabulated in Table 5, showing the partial regression coefficients
for the individual landmarks, the root mean square (RMS)
errors and the significance levels for the null-hypothesis of the
partial regression coefficients to be zero. The RMS error
represents an estimate of the standard deviation of the residual
error, i.e. the difference between the measured tissue depths and
the values predicted by the regression equations. RMS errors
correlate well with the standard deviations in Tables 2(a–e) and
3(a–e).Figs. 2 and 3 show the age and BMI partial regression
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S131
Table 2c
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult females between 40 and 49 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (12) 20–25 (32) >25 (21)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.9 0.7 2.6 5.4 11 4.3 0.6 3.4 6.4 32 5.1 1.2 3.4 9.4 21
2 Glabella 4.3 0.6 3.1 5.6 11 4.8 0.8 2.0 6.8 32 5.7 0.8 4.4 7.8 20
3 Nasion 5.4 1.0 3.6 7.4 12 6.3 1.1 3.9 8.1 32 6.7 0.7 5.5 8.4 21
4 End of nasal 2.6 0.9 2.0 5.0 12 2.5 0.6 1.7 4.9 32 2.8 0.5 2.2 3.8 21
5 Mid-philtrum 8.2 1.7 5.6 11.5 12 8.5 1.9 5.6 14.4 31 9.3 1.3 7.6 11.5 20
6 Upper lip margin 7.4 1.6 6.0 10.7 11 9.2 1.8 5.1 12.8 31 8.6 1.3 6.7 11.5 20
7 Lower lip margin 9.4 1.2 7.7 12.1 11 10.3 2.1 7.0 15.6 32 10.5 2.0 6.3 14.8 21
8 Chin-lip fold 9.0 1.2 6.8 10.4 12 10.3 1.1 7.7 11.9 32 10.7 1.0 8.9 12.4 21
9 Mental eminence 8.7 1.0 7.1 10.2 12 9.9 1.9 5.9 13.6 32 12.0 1.7 8.6 15.6 21
10 Beneath chin 4.8 0.8 3.6 6.2 12 5.7 1.4 3.7 8.7 32 6.9 1.8 4.0 10.2 21
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.8 0.6 2.7 5.1 12 4.1 0.6 3.0 5.9 31 5.0 0.9 3.4 6.8 21
33/12 Supraorbital 5.0 1.6 3.4 9.6 12 5.3 0.6 4.3 6.8 32 6.3 0.8 5.0 8.4 21
34/13 Lateral glabella 4.9 1.3 2.5 7.0 12 5.6 0.8 4.4 7.2 32 5.9 0.9 4.0 7.3 21
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.3 0.6 2.0 4.2 10 3.4 0.5 2.3 4.3 22 3.9 0.7 2.9 5.7 14
36/15 Suborbital 9.5 4.0 4.0 18.4 11 10.0 2.5 6.3 15.6 32 10.9 2.9 7.5 18.6 21
37/16 Inferior malar 16.5 2.9 10.5 19.7 12 18.1 3.1 8.5 23.7 32 20.2 3.3 13.3 26.5 21
38/17 Lateral nostril 7.6 1.0 6.0 8.9 11 9.2 1.5 5.6 12.3 32 9.4 1.1 7.2 11.8 21
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 8.0 1.8 5.5 11.7 12 8.7 1.3 6.4 11.7 31 9.4 1.7 5.8 12.9 20
40/19 Supra canina 7.4 1.1 5.8 9.2 12 8.3 1.2 6.4 10.3 31 9.1 2.2 5.9 14.1 20
41/20 Sub canina 9.1 1.9 5.9 12.1 12 10.5 1.5 8.1 13.7 32 11.0 1.6 8.0 13.5 21
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 8.7 1.0 7.3 10.2 12 10.1 1.5 7.5 12.8 32 11.8 1.5 7.7 14.6 21
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.2 0.9 3.1 6.1 12 4.8 1.0 3.4 6.8 32 5.5 1.7 3.5 9.8 21
44/23 Supraglenoid 7.4 1.9 4.2 10.7 12 9.2 2.3 5.4 14.7 30 10.2 2.3 6.2 14.5 21
45/24 Zygomatic arch 5.7 1.3 3.9 7.8 12 7.0 1.8 4.1 12.2 32 8.9 2.1 3.8 13.2 21
46/25 Lateral orbit 7.5 1.3 5.1 9.3 12 9.5 1.8 4.3 13.0 32 12.4 1.7 9.5 15.2 21
47/26 Supra-M2 22.7 1.7 19.9 25.6 9 26.0 2.7 20.0 32.0 31 29.7 3.0 25.6 35.0 21
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 13.3 3.4 8.4 18.1 12 16.4 2.5 12.2 21.0 32 19.7 3.3 9.7 24.0 21
49/28 Occlusal line 15.9 2.1 13.1 19.4 12 17.7 2.2 13.8 23.0 32 21.8 2.2 17.1 25.6 21
50/29 Sub-M2 16.7 3.1 11.4 21.1 10 18.7 3.2 10.6 25.2 29 21.5 2.5 17.0 26.2 20
51/30 Gonion 11.5 2.3 9.1 15.9 12 13.9 2.7 7.9 19.0 32 18.1 2.6 14.6 22.9 20
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 10.1 2.3 6.8 13.9 12 11.3 2.3 6.8 15.9 32 14.9 2.2 12.1 19.3 20
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S132
Table 2d
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult females between 50 and 59 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (4) 20–25 (29) >25 (41)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.7 0.2 3.5 3.8 3 4.3 0.5 3.4 5.4 29 4.9 0.7 3.5 6.6 41
2 Glabella 4.4 0.4 4.1 4.9 3 4.8 0.7 3.6 6.6 28 5.8 0.9 4.2 8.5 41
3 Nasion 5.9 2.0 4.6 8.2 3 6.2 1.2 4.4 9.2 29 7.2 1.6 4.4 11.0 41
4 End of nasal 2.7 0.6 2.2 3.5 4 2.6 0.6 1.6 3.7 29 2.9 0.7 1.8 5.0 41
5 Mid-philtrum 7.3 0.8 6.7 8.5 4 8.1 1.5 4.7 10.9 26 9.1 1.5 6.9 11.8 35
6 Upper lip margin 8.3 1.9 6.3 10.9 4 9.1 1.3 6.6 12.7 21 8.8 1.5 5.1 12.0 33
7 Lower lip margin 9.7 2.7 6.9 13.2 4 10.3 1.5 6.7 12.7 24 10.9 2.1 6.5 15.7 37
8 Chin-lip fold 9.7 1.3 8.2 11.4 4 10.1 1.4 7.3 13.2 28 10.9 1.2 8.1 14.2 40
9 Mental eminence 9.4 0.3 9.2 9.8 4 10.0 1.6 6.0 13.5 28 11.6 1.7 8.6 15.9 41
10 Beneath chin 5.5 2.3 3.9 8.2 3 5.9 1.4 4.0 9.6 28 6.9 1.7 4.3 11.7 41
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.9 0.4 3.5 4.3 3 4.3 0.5 3.2 5.3 29 5.0 0.5 3.9 6.3 41
33/12 Supraorbital 5.0 0.3 4.7 5.2 3 5.3 0.7 4.3 7.6 27 6.5 0.9 5.0 8.9 41
34/13 Lateral glabella 4.6 0.8 3.8 5.4 3 5.5 1.1 3.8 8.3 28 6.4 1.5 3.3 9.6 41
35/14 Lateral nasal – – – – 0 3.4 0.6 2.4 4.4 17 4.0 0.7 2.9 5.6 15
36/15 Suborbital 9.7 1.0 8.5 10.4 3 9.1 2.9 3.3 14.6 28 11.1 2.7 5.6 17.5 41
37/16 Inferior malar 13.8 2.0 11.6 16.3 4 19.2 3.0 12.6 25.7 28 21.0 3.1 13.9 28.0 41
38/17 Lateral nostril 8.8 2.2 6.9 11.3 4 8.4 1.4 5.9 10.7 27 9.4 1.4 6.7 12.2 41
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 7.6 0.8 6.5 8.3 4 8.4 1.1 6.2 10.3 25 9.3 1.1 7.3 11.5 33
40/19 Supra canina 7.4 1.5 5.7 9.4 4 8.1 1.6 5.8 12.1 21 8.4 1.9 3.9 12.2 33
41/20 Sub canina 9.7 1.1 8.7 11.2 4 9.9 1.1 7.6 12.4 26 10.8 1.9 5.9 16.7 38
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 8.9 1.8 6.8 10.8 4 10.4 1.3 8.3 13.4 27 11.5 1.4 6.6 13.9 40
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.5 0.8 3.8 5.3 3 5.0 1.4 3.4 10.6 27 5.6 1.3 3.9 8.7 41
44/23 Supraglenoid 9.0 2.6 7.4 12.0 3 8.6 2.7 4.8 15.9 25 10.4 2.6 5.6 19.0 41
45/24 Zygomatic arch 4.6 0.6 4.2 5.3 3 6.8 1.4 5.5 10.3 27 8.4 1.7 6.1 12.8 41
46/25 Lateral orbit 8.0 1.0 6.8 9.2 4 9.9 2.5 5.9 16.2 27 12.4 2.3 7.4 18.0 41
47/26 Supra-M2 25.1 2.9 21.8 27.2 3 27.2 3.0 21.8 32.4 23 29.2 3.2 22.1 37.8 31
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 14.3 3.2 10.8 17.2 3 16.4 2.8 9.1 20.5 27 19.0 3.7 7.2 25.7 41
49/28 Occlusal line 15.7 1.4 14.6 17.2 3 18.0 2.4 12.6 25.1 27 21.0 2.3 16.6 26.5 41
50/29 Sub-M2 17.6 0.6 17.2 18.1 2 17.9 2.3 11.3 21.6 22 22.3 3.6 15.5 29.1 34
51/30 Gonion 11.8 1.9 9.6 13.0 3 14.0 2.0 11.0 18.5 27 17.6 3.0 12.7 24.6 41
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 9.7 1.6 7.5 11.0 4 11.4 1.9 8.5 14.6 27 15.5 2.2 9.6 19.4 41
Table 2e
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult females between 60+ years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (7) 20–25 (37) >25 (43)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.7 0.5 3.1 4.6 7 4.4 0.7 3.2 5.9 37 4.6 0.8 3.4 7.4 43
2 Glabella 4.4 0.6 3.4 4.8 7 5.3 0.9 3.2 7.6 37 5.6 1.0 3.8 7.7 43
3 Nasion 6.7 1.2 5.2 8.5 7 7.2 1.2 4.8 9.9 37 7.3 1.7 4.4 11.6 42
4 End of nasal 2.4 0.5 2.0 3.5 7 2.5 0.5 2.0 4.0 37 2.8 0.7 2.0 5.3 43
5 Mid-philtrum 7.0 0.9 6.1 8.4 5 8.0 1.2 6.1 10.6 23 8.7 1.4 6.2 11.8 33
6 Upper lip margin 9.0 3.4 4.5 13.0 5 9.9 2.1 6.2 17.3 21 9.0 1.6 5.2 11.5 26
7 Lower lip margin 9.7 2.0 7.2 11.9 5 10.7 1.8 7.3 15.3 23 10.9 1.5 8.5 14.5 34
8 Chin-lip fold 11.1 0.6 10.1 11.6 6 10.8 1.7 7.0 14.2 34 11.2 1.6 6.7 13.8 37
9 Mental eminence 9.7 2.0 8.2 13.8 7 10.5 2.0 5.6 16.5 37 11.6 1.7 8.5 16.1 43
10 Beneath chin 6.5 2.6 3.6 10.1 7 7.0 2.1 3.8 11.6 37 7.3 2.0 4.4 13.0 43
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.7 0.4 3.3 4.3 6 4.6 0.8 3.4 7.5 37 4.8 0.9 3.0 7.1 43
33/12 Supraorbital 4.8 0.4 4.2 5.4 7 5.5 0.7 4.5 7.4 37 6.5 1.0 5.1 9.3 43
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.8 1.5 3.9 8.2 7 6.1 1.2 4.8 10.1 37 6.4 1.5 3.9 10.2 43
35/14 Lateral nasal – – – – 0 3.7 0.5 3.1 4.1 5 3.8 0.6 3.1 4.6 4
36/15 Suborbital 9.6 1.9 6.8 12.3 6 10.4 1.9 7.5 13.6 36 10.4 2.5 4.9 16.2 43
37/16 Inferior malar 17.6 2.6 13.7 20.9 7 19.8 3.4 13.7 27.5 36 21.3 3.6 12.0 27.5 43
38/17 Lateral nostril 9.2 0.8 8.4 10.3 7 9.6 1.1 6.7 11.7 35 9.5 1.1 7.1 11.9 43
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 8.0 1.3 6.6 10.1 5 8.4 1.0 6.3 11.0 22 8.9 1.5 6.5 12.9 29
40/19 Supra canina 7.6 1.3 5.6 8.5 4 8.1 2.2 3.8 13.0 22 9.5 2.4 5.9 15.7 26
coefficients (b
1
and b
2
, respectively, in Table 5) for each
landmark. The regression of soft tissue depth on age is of
different signs for different landmarks, indicating no systematic
unidirectional change of soft tissue depth with age, if any. The
age-related regression coefficient is also systematically smaller
than the BMI-related regression coefficient, even after normal-
ization for the relative differences in standard deviation of BMI
and age (the standard deviation of age being about 4 times
larger than the standard deviation of BMI). The BMI partial
regression coefficients are systematically positive, with the
exception of the very small negative partial regression
coefficients for the upper lip in women and the naso-labial
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S133
Table 2e (Continued )
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (7) 20–25 (37) >25 (43)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
41/20 Sub canina 10.8 2.1 7.9 13.8 6 11.1 1.3 9.2 13.9 27 11.1 1.8 7.1 15.0 32
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 10.6 2.0 8.4 14.6 7 10.9 1.7 5.7 15.0 37 11.4 1.6 8.4 14.8 43
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.6 0.6 3.7 5.7 7 5.0 1.3 3.3 10.3 37 5.9 1.0 4.0 8.7 43
44/23 Supraglenoid 8.8 2.1 6.6 11.7 7 9.6 2.4 4.8 16.5 36 10.9 3.0 5.3 20.2 43
45/24 Zygomatic arch 5.4 1.7 2.8 7.6 7 6.5 1.6 3.8 11.1 37 8.7 1.9 5.4 12.7 42
46/25 Lateral orbit 8.8 1.1 7.4 10.1 7 9.7 1.5 6.8 12.4 36 12.1 2.0 8.9 16.2 43
47/26 Supra-M2 24.5 0.8 24.0 25.5 3 27.1 3.4 18.8 32.8 19 29.0 3.3 23.6 34.2 18
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 14.1 1.8 12.5 17.1 7 15.7 2.6 9.6 19.5 37 17.2 3.6 8.3 23.2 43
49/28 Occlusal line 18.2 2.7 16.0 24.0 7 18.0 3.3 12.0 33.3 36 20.8 2.2 16.8 25.0 43
50/29 Sub-M2 21.5 4.1 18.8 26.2 3 21.2 2.6 15.1 27.4 23 22.4 4.0 16.0 29.2 21
51/30 Gonion 12.9 2.5 9.1 15.4 7 13.6 1.9 9.4 18.7 37 17.2 2.5 12.5 23.6 43
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 13.7 3.0 9.5 19.2 7 14.0 2.4 10.8 21.3 37 17.2 3.4 10.3 24.7 43
Table 3a
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult males between 18 and 29 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (28) 20–25 (149) >25 (34)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.9 0.39 3.2 4.8 27 4.1 0.55 2.8 7.0 148 4.8 0.85 3.7 7.6 34
2 Glabella 4.6 0.54 3.7 5.6 27 5.0 0.69 3.2 7.9 149 5.8 1.30 4.5 10.6 34
3 Nasion 5.6 0.85 4.0 8.4 27 5.9 1.10 3.6 9.7 149 6.3 1.32 4.2 10.0 34
4 End of nasal 2.7 0.67 2.0 4.5 27 2.8 0.69 1.6 6.5 148 3.2 0.73 2.1 5.5 34
5 Mid-philtrum 11.6 1.71 8.2 14.0 27 11.2 1.78 7.1 16.6 146 10.8 1.66 7.4 13.9 33
6 Upper lip margin 11.1 2.14 7.2 17.7 26 11.0 2.15 6.4 15.9 147 10.4 1.71 6.1 14.2 34
7 Lower lip margin 12.1 1.70 8.3 16.0 25 12.5 2.05 8.0 17.6 147 12.2 2.17 8.3 15.8 34
8 Chin-lip fold 10.1 1.41 7.5 12.6 25 10.1 1.31 6.5 13.8 139 10.1 0.97 8.8 12.2 33
9 Mental eminence 8.7 1.57 5.3 12.5 25 9.5 1.66 4.6 15.0 144 10.3 1.91 5.0 13.5 33
10 Beneath chin 5.5 1.02 3.8 7.6 25 6.1 1.20 3.9 9.9 142 7.2 1.73 4.7 11.0 32
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.8 0.47 3.1 4.7 27 4.1 0.64 2.0 5.9 149 5.0 0.96 3.6 8.6 34
33/12 Supraorbital 4.7 0.52 3.6 5.6 27 5.1 0.65 3.6 7.4 149 6.1 0.66 5.0 8.1 33
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.9 1.12 3.4 7.7 27 6.0 1.29 2.8 9.7 148 6.2 1.31 3.7 9.0 34
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.7 0.59 2.7 4.8 23 3.7 0.64 2.4 6.0 120 4.1 0.68 3.1 5.4 21
36/15 Suborbital 7.7 1.35 5.1 10.7 27 8.3 2.07 4.0 14.5 148 9.8 2.18 4.6 13.8 34
37/16 Inferior malar 14.7 2.44 9.8 20.7 27 16.2 2.80 10.6 24.6 148 18.9 3.23 12.4 24.7 34
38/17 Lateral nostril 10.4 1.37 6.9 13.1 26 10.1 1.48 6.8 14.2 146 10.3 1.27 8.1 12.8 34
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 11.4 1.67 8.3 15.3 26 11.1 1.93 6.4 17.2 143 11.0 1.57 8.1 14.1 33
40/19 Supra canina 10.0 1.74 7.0 13.4 25 10.4 1.93 6.4 16.3 147 10.5 1.96 8.2 18.1 33
41/20 Sub canina 9.5 1.19 6.7 11.4 25 10.5 1.65 6.5 16.4 147 11.1 1.95 7.7 16.0 33
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 9.2 1.21 7.0 12.5 24 9.6 1.42 6.3 13.3 142 10.8 1.57 7.3 14.6 33
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.8 1.34 3.7 8.8 25 4.6 0.82 3.4 10.3 148 5.4 1.67 3.8 13.5 34
44/23 Supraglenoid 9.1 3.11 4.0 15.0 25 9.8 2.92 3.8 18.0 147 10.7 3.26 5.1 17.5 34
45/24 Zygomatic arch 4.8 1.05 3.1 7.0 25 5.7 1.15 3.4 9.1 148 8.4 1.66 5.8 12.2 34
46/25 Lateral orbit 6.7 1.15 4.7 9.8 25 7.4 1.37 4.0 12.4 148 10.3 1.68 5.4 14.1 34
47/26 Supra-M2 23.6 4.29 15.8 35.3 25 25.0 3.48 16.4 33.4 148 29.4 3.48 20.8 37.3 33
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 16.2 3.29 7.0 20.8 25 16.8 3.98 6.5 27.5 141 19.0 4.06 10.3 26.9 34
49/28 Occlusal line 17.8 1.83 15.0 21.5 25 19.4 2.38 12.4 28.4 148 22.8 2.37 18.5 27.8 34
50/29 Sub-M2 16.1 3.50 10.0 23.9 25 17.2 2.82 10.5 25.5 148 21.0 4.35 7.7 30.8 33
51/30 Gonion 13.6 2.16 9.9 17.2 25 14.4 2.42 7.0 22.3 146 17.8 3.64 8.0 25.2 34
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 8.9 1.88 5.4 13.1 25 9.8 2.30 5.0 16.9 144 13.7 2.49 9.6 18.7 34
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S134
Table 3b
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult males between 30–39 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (3) 20–25 (37) >25 (31)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 3.6 0.24 3.4 3.8 3 4.1 0.54 3.2 5.6 37 4.8 0.84 3.2 6.8 31
2 Glabella 4.7 0.55 4.1 5.1 3 4.7 0.44 3.8 5.7 37 5.4 0.88 4.1 7.9 31
3 Nasion 5.3 0.34 4.9 5.6 3 5.6 1.00 3.7 7.4 37 6.8 1.54 4.0 10.2 31
4 End of nasal 3.1 0.94 2.4 4.2 3 2.7 0.68 1.9 4.8 37 3.0 0.78 1.7 5.0 31
5 Mid-philtrum 9.5 1.48 7.8 10.6 3 10.6 1.63 6.7 13.9 36 10.7 1.72 7.4 15.6 27
6 Upper lip margin 10.1 1.84 8.0 11.6 3 9.8 1.65 6.5 14.0 35 10.8 1.78 8.6 16.5 31
7 Lower lip margin 9.3 1.65 7.8 11.1 3 11.8 2.04 7.9 17.5 36 13.1 2.43 9.1 20.8 31
8 Chin-lip fold 10.3 0.96 9.2 11.0 3 9.6 1.21 6.9 11.8 34 10.7 0.93 9.2 13.4 27
9 Mental eminence 9.6 0.50 9.2 10.1 3 9.4 1.60 6.0 13.0 37 11.3 1.26 7.9 13.7 28
10 Beneath chin 5.3 0.67 4.8 6.1 3 6.2 1.43 3.9 10.8 37 7.1 1.46 4.9 10.8 25
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.7 0.56 3.1 4.2 3 4.1 0.65 3.1 6.0 37 4.8 0.77 3.6 6.5 31
33/12 Supraorbital 4.9 0.64 4.2 5.3 3 5.0 0.53 4.1 6.0 37 6.3 0.89 4.9 8.0 31
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.9 0.70 5.1 6.3 3 5.5 1.40 3.2 8.5 36 5.9 1.32 3.8 9.2 31
35/14 Lateral nasal 4.8 0.20 4.7 5.0 2 3.6 0.50 2.8 5.2 24 3.8 0.84 2.4 5.8 26
36/15 Suborbital 6.1 2.50 4.6 9.0 3 8.4 2.31 4.5 13.3 36 10.0 2.25 6.5 14.0 31
37/16 Inferior malar 13.7 2.29 11.8 16.2 3 16.5 3.19 8.6 23.0 37 20.2 3.50 14.2 27.2 31
38/17 Lateral nostril 9.7 1.34 8.7 11.2 3 9.2 1.13 7.3 12.1 37 10.0 1.29 6.7 12.3 31
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 10.8 1.35 9.2 11.6 3 10.8 1.66 8.5 15.3 35 11.0 1.57 8.7 14.4 25
40/19 Supra canina 10.2 2.46 8.4 13.0 3 9.7 1.87 6.5 14.5 37 10.0 2.02 7.2 15.7 26
41/20 Sub canina 9.3 0.70 8.9 10.1 3 9.7 1.42 6.0 12.1 37 11.2 1.81 7.5 14.5 30
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 9.2 1.15 8.0 10.3 3 9.5 1.34 6.1 12.3 35 11.4 1.70 8.3 15.0 27
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.7 0.44 4.2 5.1 3 4.4 0.68 3.5 6.0 36 5.2 1.23 3.4 9.8 31
44/23 Supraglenoid 8.1 1.20 6.8 9.2 3 8.8 2.71 4.8 14.8 36 10.5 2.63 6.4 15.6 31
45/24 Zygomatic arch 4.9 0.73 4.4 5.7 3 5.8 1.23 4.3 10.0 37 7.9 1.48 5.5 11.1 31
46/25 Lateral orbit 6.8 0.87 6.3 7.8 3 7.3 1.55 4.3 11.9 37 10.6 1.17 8.4 12.7 31
47/26 Supra-M2 22.9 0.58 22.2 23.3 3 24.1 3.83 15.1 31.0 37 28.7 3.86 19.1 36.1 30
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 16.7 1.03 15.8 17.8 3 16.9 3.45 9.0 23.5 37 21.7 4.58 10.7 29.6 31
49/28 Occlusal line 16.4 0.52 15.8 16.9 3 18.8 2.36 14.2 24.6 36 22.3 3.01 16.1 27.0 31
50/29 Sub-M2 17.0 1.63 15.9 18.9 3 16.5 2.86 10.0 22.7 36 21.3 3.35 14.8 27.4 31
51/30 Gonion 12.9 0.57 12.6 13.6 3 14.2 2.21 9.4 19.0 37 19.1 2.91 11.8 24.4 31
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 9.5 1.08 8.6 10.7 3 9.9 2.13 5.2 16.1 37 15.1 3.32 9.0 20.8 31
Table 3c
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult males between 40 and 49 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (1) 20–25 (24) >25 (35)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 4.3 – – – 1 4.5 0.66 3.0 5.6 23 5.3 0.95 3.9 8.5 35
2 Glabella 6.7 – – – 1 5.1 0.60 3.9 6.2 24 5.9 1.06 3.8 9.0 35
3 Nasion 8.8 – – – 1 6.4 1.15 4.6 9.3 24 6.8 1.53 4.9 11.3 35
4 End of nasal 3.1 – – – 1 3.1 0.81 2.2 4.8 24 3.2 0.89 2.0 6.5 34
5 Mid-philtrum 13.1 – – – 1 9.7 1.88 7.7 14.4 22 10.6 1.58 7.3 13.9 27
6 Upper lip margin 11.9 – – – 1 10.6 2.52 6.2 16.0 22 10.6 2.47 6.9 17.4 34
7 Lower lip margin 11.2 – – – 1 11.7 2.23 7.1 14.8 23 12.5 2.16 9.1 17.3 35
8 Chin-lip fold 8.7 – – – 1 10.9 1.59 8.8 14.7 24 11.5 1.37 8.5 13.9 32
9 Mental eminence 14.0 – – – 1 10.8 1.45 7.9 14.6 24 12.1 2.16 8.4 16.3 32
10 Beneath chin 5.9 – – – 1 6.4 1.27 4.7 9.2 24 7.5 1.98 4.3 11.8 33
32/11 Frontal eminence 4.5 – – – 1 4.7 0.70 3.1 5.8 24 5.3 1.15 3.8 9.1 35
33/12 Supraorbital 5.0 – – – 1 5.3 0.72 4.2 6.8 24 6.6 1.30 3.8 10.0 35
34/13 Lateral glabella 3.0 – – – 1 6.6 1.25 4.0 8.3 24 6.8 1.61 4.6 10.9 35
35/14 Lateral nasal - – – – 0 4.0 0.69 2.8 5.5 14 3.9 0.60 3.1 5.1 19
36/15 Suborbital 6.3 – – – 1 9.7 2.01 6.8 14.5 24 10.4 2.60 5.0 17.2 35
37/16 Inferior malar 15.4 – – – 1 17.9 3.43 10.0 24.2 24 21.8 3.88 11.6 31.6 35
38/17 Lateral nostril 9.4 – – – 1 9.6 1.69 7.0 12.7 24 10.2 1.74 6.8 14.6 35
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 14.1 – – – 1 10.4 2.15 7.5 15.5 21 10.9 1.55 8.5 13.9 27
40/19 Supra canina 8.7 – – – 1 9.9 2.01 7.3 14.9 20 10.2 2.07 7.1 15.0 27
41/20 Sub canina 11.6 – – – 1 10.9 1.35 7.9 13.3 23 12.0 2.33 7.0 16.3 34
ridge in men. Based on these partial regression coefficients,
BMI seems to have a bigger impact, in general, on the tissue
depths for men as compared to women. The p-values listed in
Table 5 also indicate that not all coefficients have a significant
impact on tissue depth. For example, the same small negative
partial regression coefficients for BMI, mentioned above, are
indeed not statistically significant in the depth determination. In
females, the soft tissue depth at the lower lip is even statistically
unrelated to age and BMI.
Table 6 reports the statistical differences between the left
and right side of the face. The median values of the left and right
side of the face, the median values of the ‘‘paired’’ differences,
the confidence intervals for the median differences for every
landmark at a significance level of 99% and the relative median
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S135
Table 3c (Continued )
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (1) 20–25 (24) >25 (35)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 13.9 – – – 1 10.8 1.45 8.6 14.6 24 11.8 1.99 7.7 17.1 32
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.4 – – – 1 5.0 1.32 3.6 10.0 24 5.3 1.04 3.7 7.4 34
44/23 Supraglenoid 6.8 – – – 1 10.8 3.88 5.4 18.7 24 10.2 3.41 5.2 19.4 35
45/24 Zygomatic arch 3.8 – – – 1 6.1 1.26 4.0 9.0 24 8.1 2.22 4.4 14.1 35
46/25 Lateral orbit 5.2 – – – 1 8.1 1.46 5.6 11.6 24 10.8 2.18 6.2 15.9 35
47/26 Supra-M2 26.8 – – – 1 24.9 3.84 10.2 29.2 23 30.8 3.96 23.8 39.8 34
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 20.0 – – – 1 18.2 3.88 6.1 24.8 24 23.0 3.61 14.9 32.2 34
49/28 Occlusal line 21.8 – – – 1 19.5 1.62 16.2 23.8 24 23.1 3.66 14.3 31.4 34
50/29 Sub-M2 19.0 – – – 1 18.7 2.91 11.1 22.7 22 22.4 4.20 15.2 32.3 32
51/30 Gonion 14.6 – – – 1 15.6 2.39 10.5 19.6 24 19.1 3.71 10.3 30.5 34
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 12.1 – – – 1 11.9 2.52 7.9 16.9 24 15.0 3.15 9.2 24.6 32
Table 3d
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult males between 50 and 59 years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (2) 20–25 (18) >25 (45)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella 2.9 0.08 2.9 3.0 2 4.6 0.53 3.9 5.8 18 5.1 0.78 3.1 7.7 45
2 Glabella 3.8 0.48 3.5 4.2 2 5.5 1.05 4.1 8.0 17 5.9 0.91 4.1 7.9 43
3 Nasion 4.3 0.71 3.8 4.8 2 6.8 1.48 4.2 9.1 18 7.2 1.66 3.0 11.5 45
4 End of nasal 2.3 0.04 2.3 2.4 2 2.7 0.35 2.2 3.2 18 3.2 0.74 2.1 5.5 44
5 Mid-philtrum 10.3 – – – 1 10.4 1.87 7.9 14.7 14 10.4 2.01 7.9 15.7 34
6 Upper lip margin 6.6 2.46 4.9 8.3 2 9.8 2.28 6.4 14.6 17 10.1 1.88 6.4 14.5 40
7 Lower lip margin 11.8 2.63 10.0 13.7 2 12.8 2.41 8.8 16.8 16 11.8 2.67 7.3 24.6 43
8 Chin-lip fold 9.3 0.83 8.8 9.9 2 10.5 1.22 7.7 12.7 16 11.3 1.37 7.7 15.0 42
9 Mental eminence 8.9 2.76 6.9 10.8 2 10.2 1.48 8.5 13.6 16 12.2 2.23 8.0 18.8 41
10 Beneath chin 5.0 1.15 4.2 5.8 2 6.2 0.84 4.9 8.0 15 7.8 1.82 5.2 13.0 39
32/11 Frontal eminence 3.1 0.31 2.9 3.4 2 4.6 0.62 3.6 5.8 18 5.2 0.87 3.9 8.3 45
33/12 Supraorbital 4.1 0.31 3.9 4.3 2 5.8 1.06 4.6 8.5 18 6.5 0.73 4.7 8.4 44
34/13 Lateral glabella 4.3 0.14 4.2 4.4 2 6.0 1.56 3.5 8.9 18 6.5 1.39 3.9 10.8 45
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.9 1.90 2.6 5.2 2 4.0 0.59 3.0 4.5 8 3.7 0.35 3.2 4.7 17
36/15 Suborbital 7.8 1.53 6.7 8.9 2 9.0 3.36 3.7 14.8 18 11.6 3.24 4.2 18.8 45
37/16 Inferior malar 15.0 0.28 14.8 15.2 2 18.2 3.77 10.7 25.4 18 20.7 4.39 9.7 28.8 45
38/17 Lateral nostril 7.7 2.06 6.2 9.2 2 9.7 1.91 6.0 13.8 18 10.2 1.76 6.8 13.8 43
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 8.6 – – – 1 10.4 1.50 8.2 12.8 12 10.3 1.60 8.3 14.2 33
40/19 Supra canina 11.5 – – – 1 9.4 1.58 7.1 13.2 13 10.4 1.85 6.8 13.7 36
41/20 Sub canina 9.1 1.32 8.2 10.0 2 10.5 1.82 8.5 15.1 16 11.8 1.70 8.8 15.6 43
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 7.4 0.42 7.1 7.7 2 10.9 1.26 8.5 13.6 16 12.3 1.78 9.6 18.3 40
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.0 0.45 3.6 4.3 2 4.8 0.84 3.8 6.7 18 5.7 1.40 3.9 10.7 45
44/23 Supraglenoid 8.9 – – – 1 9.5 1.77 7.1 12.2 18 11.0 3.16 6.5 20.9 45
45/24 Zygomatic arch 4.8 – – – 1 6.3 1.78 3.6 11.4 18 8.1 1.90 4.2 14.4 45
46/25 Lateral orbit 7.4 – – – 1 8.0 1.46 5.8 10.7 18 10.7 2.15 7.2 16.3 45
47/26 Supra-M2 19.1 – – – 1 23.7 4.29 14.5 31.4 14 29.2 3.80 19.8 34.9 32
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 14.0 – – – 1 18.0 2.85 12.6 24.2 18 21.5 4.02 12.7 31.2 45
49/28 Occlusal line 16.8 – – – 1 19.1 2.24 14.3 23.8 17 21.8 3.14 14.2 29.4 44
50/29 Sub-M2 14.7 – – – 1 17.3 2.79 12.4 22.1 13 21.4 3.24 15.5 27.7 35
51/30 Gonion 14.5 – – – 1 13.1 2.65 8.5 18.6 17 18.7 3.39 9.0 26.4 42
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 10.2 – – – 1 11.4 1.84 7.1 14.5 17 15.1 3.08 8.2 20.8 41
differences are reported. Twelve of the 21 bilateral points show
a statistically significant difference at a significance level of
p<0.01. The relative bilateral median differences however
never exceed 6%, with the maximal absolute median difference
being 1.04 mm (for the mid-masseter muscle) compared to an
associated average of 17 mm.
Tables 7–9 and Figs. 4–6 report on the differences between
the new database and the databases of former studies. For the
common points between these studies and our study, the
medians [3]or means [2,4] of the traditional and the new
database, the difference between the corresponding medians or
means, as well as the significance level of the hypothetical tests
of equality of medians or means and the involved number of
subjects are reported. The percentage of landmarks showing a
significant difference at a level of p<0.01 vary between 91%
for the Rhine and Moore study, 78% for the Helmer study and
61% for the Manhein study. Figs. 4–6 show for each of the
comparative studies the typical facial outlook, per subcategory,
for the reference study and our study, as well as the colorscale-
coded surfaces representing the corresponding differences.
Since two-way ANOVA tests showed these differences to be
much less related to gender than to any of the two other
attributes (age and body posture), we show the renderings for
both sexes merged.
In the Rhine and Moore study, with the exception of the
supra-orbital landmark, all the landmarks in the slender group
are thinner than in our study. This is also statistically confirmed
by a one-sided t-test showing that for both male and female 19
out of 21 landmarks in the slender subcategory are significantly
(p<0.01) smaller in the Rhine and Moore study. This
difference, in number and in magnitude, diminishes and even
reverses for some of the landmarks, especially the lateral orbit
and zygomatic arch, with increase in body build as is pictorially
demonstrated in Fig. 4. The inferior malar, suborbital, supra-
M2 and sub-M2, however, remain systematically thinner in the
Rhine and Moore study over all body posture categories. The
supra-orbital landmark, on the other hand, is systematically
thicker compared to the new dataset in all three categories. A
two-way ANOVA analysis shows, for all landmarks, a much
larger dependence of inter-study soft tissue thickness differ-
ences on body posture as compared to gender.
Compared to our dataset, in the Helmer study 3 of the 24
common landmarks (supra-M2, gonion and suborbital) were
reported systematically thinner. In contrast, the lateral nasal and
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S136
Table 3e
Tissue depth means (mm) for Caucasian adult males between 60+ years
Point numbers and descriptions BMI
<20 (0) 20–25 (13) >25 (37)
Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range # Mean S.D. Range #
1 Supraglabella – – – – 0 4.3 0.54 2.9 4.8 13 5.0 0.94 3.4 7.4 37
2 Glabella – – – – 0 5.2 0.68 4.2 7.0 13 5.9 1.12 4.2 8.6 37
3 Nasion – – – – 0 6.3 1.46 3.8 9.1 13 7.0 1.24 3.8 9.7 37
4 End of nasal – – – – 0 3.2 1.26 2.1 6.8 13 3.4 1.06 2.0 6.9 37
5 Mid-philtrum – – – – 0 9.0 1.07 7.1 10.3 8 9.9 1.42 8.0 13.4 30
6 Upper lip margin – – – – 0 9.4 1.53 7.4 11.3 8 9.6 1.67 4.9 12.6 25
7 Lower lip margin – – – – 0 10.1 1.85 7.2 12.2 8 12.9 2.76 9.5 18.5 27
8 Chin-lip fold – – – – 0 10.1 1.29 8.3 12.6 13 11.5 1.95 7.4 17.0 34
9 Mental eminence – – – – 0 10.5 2.12 7.0 14.5 13 12.6 2.15 8.8 16.9 35
10 Beneath chin – – – – 0 6.8 1.63 4.6 9.5 13 7.8 1.77 4.7 12.3 35
32/11 Frontal eminence – – – – 0 4.5 0.72 3.0 5.8 13 5.2 1.14 3.5 8.3 37
33/12 Supraorbital – – – – 0 5.5 0.78 4.3 7.0 13 6.8 1.11 5.3 10.6 37
34/13 Lateral glabella – – – – 0 6.6 1.55 4.7 9.8 13 6.2 1.59 3.4 11.2 37
35/14 Lateral nasal – – – – 0 4.7 1.29 3.2 5.6 3 4.0 0.78 2.5 4.8 6
36/15 Suborbital – – – – 0 10.5 2.93 5.9 16.0 13 10.6 3.51 4.8 19.7 37
37/16 Inferior malar – – – – 0 18.3 3.83 10.9 25.1 13 22.3 3.98 13.8 30.8 37
38/17 Lateral nostril – – – – 0 10.2 1.86 7.9 15.0 13 9.6 1.52 6.6 13.5 37
39/18 Naso-labial ridge – – – – 0 9.0 1.18 6.9 10.1 8 9.9 1.58 7.7 13.5 27
40/19 Supra canina – – – – 0 9.2 1.22 7.7 11.6 8 9.6 1.86 7.2 13.6 24
41/20 Sub canina – – – – 0 10.5 1.16 8.7 12.2 8 11.3 1.60 8.7 15.3 29
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. – – – – 0 10.8 1.09 9.4 12.4 13 12.3 1.90 8.7 15.8 35
43/22 Mid lateral orbit – – – – 0 4.5 0.45 3.9 5.3 13 5.4 1.08 3.6 7.6 37
44/23 Supraglenoid – – – – 0 9.1 2.90 5.8 14.2 13 10.3 3.61 5.6 21.1 37
45/24 Zygomatic arch – – – – 0 5.9 1.13 4.5 8.2 13 8.3 1.63 5.9 12.6 37
46/25 Lateral orbit – – – – 0 7.8 1.13 6.1 10.1 13 10.4 1.57 7.7 13.8 37
47/26 Supra-M2 – – – – 0 28.0 4.30 23.1 34.0 6 29.6 5.04 18.2 38.2 21
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle – – – – 0 17.3 3.54 12.0 22.6 13 19.8 5.28 8.5 31.8 37
49/28 Occlusal line – – – – 0 18.6 1.92 14.9 21.2 13 21.8 3.41 17.1 35.2 37
50/29 Sub-M2 – – – – 0 19.8 2.07 17.8 23.1 6 22.0 3.66 16.4 28.6 16
51/30 Gonion – – – – 0 14.0 3.11 8.0 19.4 12 19.3 3.65 13.9 29.1 37
52/31 Mid mandibular angle – – – – 0 13.0 2.72 10.0 20.4 12 16.7 3.58 11.4 29.8 35
mid-philtrum landmarks are systematically thicker in the
Helmer study. The difference in the supra-M2 results could be
explained by the slight difference in landmark positioning
between the two studies since Helmer measured at the first
molar whereas we measured at the second molar. A two-way
ANOVA analysis shows, for most of the landmarks, a slightly
larger dependence of inter-study soft tissue thickness differ-
ences on age as compared to gender.
The differences between the Manhein study and our study
are overall smaller than between our study and any of the two
other studies as can be seen by comparing Figs. 4–6. The
landmarks supra-M2, sub-M2, gonion and mid-mandibular
angle are systematically higher in the Manhein et al. tables.
Again, as in the former comparisons, the suborbital landmark is
systematically higher in our dataset. The most probable
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S137
Table 4
Overview composition population De Greef et al. study
18–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years 50–59 years 60+ years
BMI <20 20–25 >25 <20 20–25 >25 <20 20–25 >25 <20 20–25 >25 <20 20–25 >25
Gender M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
Number 28 56 149 127 34 29 3 12 37 40 31 20 1 12 24 32 35 21 2 4 18 29 45 41 0 7 13 37 37 43
Mean BMI 19.68 18.55 22.38 21.99 28.44 28.18 19.03 18.92 22.77 22.29 28.62 28.49 19.92 18.99 23.13 22.78 29.10 32.02 19.25 18.97 24.13 23.03 28.15 29.78 – 19.32 23.80 22.68 29.64 28.87
Mean age 22.00 21.75 22.96 22.55 23.64 23.27 34.00 33.07 33.86 33.87 34.12 34.45 43.00 44.33 43.95 44.40 44.34 45.23 50.50 54.50 54.50 54.06 55.20 54.36 – 69.71 69.90 74.43 68.10 71.44
Fig. 2. Partial regression coefficients b
1
(female: circle, male: cross) of soft
tissue depths (mm) on age (year). Bilateral measurements are merged before
regression.
Fig. 3. Partial regression coefficients b
2
(female: circle, male: cross) of soft
tissue depths (mm) on BMI (kg/m
2
). Bilateral measurements are merged before
regression.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S138
Table 5
Linear regression equation: partial regression coefficients, the root mean square (RMS) errors and the significance levels
Point numbers and descriptions Males Females
b
0
b
1
pb
2
pRMSE b
0
b
1
pb
2
pRMSE
1 Supraglabella 1.7 5.0
*
104.5
**
0.6 2.7 2 62
**
0.6
2 Glabella 2.5 3.2 103.1
**
0.7 3.4 277
**
0.8
3 Nasion 3.6 11.9
**
87.9
**
1.2 4.8 15
**
42
**
1.3
4 End of nasal 1.8 2.4 37.6
**
0.6 1.7 2
*
36
**
0.5
5 Mid-philtrum 11.4 37.2
**
22.8 1.7 9.7 39
**
39
*
1.6
6 Upper lip margin 11.3 36.5
**
17.7 2.0 10.6 18
**
21 1.7
7 Lower lip margin 11.0 30.5
**
92.0
**
2.1 10.1 9 37 2.0
8 Chin-lip fold 7.4 11.7
*
107.0
**
1.3 7.9 23
**
54
**
1.2
9 Mental eminence 3.4 29.7
**
238.3
**
1.7 5.5 12
**
174
**
1.7
10 Beneath chin 1.7 2.4 190.8
**
1.3 2.9 9
*
118
**
1.5
32/11 Frontal eminence 1.7 1.0 108.4
**
0.7 2.3 1 76
**
0.6
33/12 Supraorbital 1.8 5.1 148.8
**
0.9 3.3 0 95
**
0.8
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.0 15.0
**
55.6
**
1.3 4.9 15
**
48
**
1.1
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.4 9.1
*
30.6
*
0.6 3.9 14
**
10 0.6
36/15 Suborbital 4.0 6.9 199.1
**
2.3 7.7 29
**
130
**
2.2
37/16 Inferior malar 5.2 36.9
**
452.6
**
3.3 12.3 6 249
**
2.8
38/17 Lateral nostril 10.2 29.5
**
25.7 1.5 9.9 32
**
14 1.3
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 12.0 32.3
**
4.2 2.0 9.6 55
**
70
**
1.6
40/19 Supra canina 10.5 21.3
*
25.8 2.0 10.6 57
**
20 1.7
41/20 Sub canina 7.2 13.6 149.9
**
1.7 9.2 31
**
82
**
1.5
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 4.2 23.4
**
208.9
**
1.4 6.6 8 129
**
1.5
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 2.8 3.5 83.9
**
0.7 4.1 142
**
0.9
44/23 Supraglenoid 8.3 34.2
**
109.7
*
2.8 8.2 34
**
104
**
1.9
45/24 Zygomatic arch 1.2 5.1 315.4
**
1.2 3.0 15
*
194
**
1.4
46/25 Lateral orbit 0.3 13.4
*
364.9
**
1.4 5.2 44
**
266
**
1.7
47/26 Supra-M2 12.4 9.6 565.5
**
3.4 22.5 56
**
275
**
2.9
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 6.7 9.1 447.0
**
4.5 13.4 47
**
194
**
3.3
49/28 Occlusal line 8.8 36.0
**
503.4
**
2.4 13.1 58
**
340
**
2.0
50/29 Sub-M2 5.4 1.8 516.5
**
3.2 14.2 27 250
**
3.2
51/30 Gonion 2.0 2.8 547.0
**
3.0 7.5 30
**
340
**
2.4
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 4.1 45.9
**
562.0
**
2.5 3.8 12 329
**
2.3
Y=b
0
+b
1
age + b
2
BMI; b0 (mm), b
1
(mm/YR) (%); b
2
(mm/BMI) (%); RMSE (mm).
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.
Table 6
Statistical analysis between the left and right side of the face
Left Right Diff. Conf. int. Rel. diff. (%)
32/11 Frontal eminence 4.1 4.3 0.00 0.08 0.04 0
33/12 Supraorbital 5.6 5.4 0.12 0.04 0.24 2
34/13 Lateral glabella 5.7 5.9 0.12 0.00 0.20 2
35/14 Lateral nasal 3.8 3.7 0.14 0.08 0.22 4
36/15 Suborbital 9.5 9.4 0.24 0.00 0.46 3
37/16 Inferior malar 17.5 18.2 0.10 0.19 0.36 1
38/17 Lateral nostril 9.7 9.5 0.01 0.12 0.14 0
39/18 Naso-labial ridge 10.1 9.8 0.18 0.04 0.39 2
40/19 Supra canina 9.9 9.3 0.22 0.03 0.42 2
41/20 Sub canina 10.0 10.5 0.03 0.24 0.07 0
42/21 Mental tubercle ant. 9.7 10.3 0.21 0.30 0.07 2
43/22 Mid lateral orbit 4.8 4.8 0.04 0.04 0.16 1
44/23 Supraglenoid 9.9 9.5 0.04 0.21 0.26 0
45/24 Zygomatic arch 6.5 6.7 0.04 0.12 0.16 1
46/25 Lateral orbit 8.9 9.4 0.00 0.12 0.13 0
47/26 Supra-M2 26.6 26.8 0.24 0.00 0.60 1
48/27 Mid-masseter muscle 16.2 17.8 1.04 1.40 0.56 6
49/28 Occlusal line 19.0 19.5 0.32 0.52 0.12 2
50/29 Sub-M2 17.9 18.8 0.50 0.84 0.24 3
51/30 Gonion 14.2 15.1 0.40 0.64 0.18 3
52/31 Mid mandibular angle 10.6 12.1 0.72 0.96 0.42 6
Grey shaded landmarks show a statistically significant difference at a significance level of p<0.01.
explanation for the suborbital landmark to be systematically
higher in our study compared to all other studies is that in our
study design this landmark is positioned just below the orbital
rim, and not on the orbit as in the other studies, because of the
difficulty of obtaining a strong enough reflected ultrasound
signal otherwise. As a result, the tissue depths at this slightly
shifted landmark position are systematically larger. A two-way
ANOVA analysis now shows, for all the landmarks, a modestly
larger dependence of inter-study soft tissue thickness differ-
ences on age as compared to gender.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S139
Table 7
Comparison of the De Greef et al. (KUL) soft tissue depth measurements with the Rhine and Moore (RHI) study (1984)
Males
Point numbers and description Slender Normal Obese
KUL RHI RHI, 3 KUL, 36 DIFF pRHI, 37 KUL, 241 DIFF pRHI, 8 KUL, 182 DIFF p
1 1 Supraglabella 2.3 3.8 1.5
**
4.3 4.2 0.1 5.5 5.0 0.5
**
2 2 Glabella 2.5 4.6 2.1
**
5.3 5.0 0.2
**
7.5 5.8 1.7
**
3 3 Nasion 4.3 5.6 1.4
**
6.5 6.0 0.5
**
7.5 6.8 0.7
**
4 4 End of nasals 2.5 2.7 0.2
*
3.0 2.8 0.2
**
3.5 3.2 0.3
**
5 5 Mid-philtrum 6.3 11.4 5.1
**
10.0 10.9 0.9
**
11.0 10.5 0.5
**
6 6 Upper lip margin 9.8 10.8 1.1
**
9.8 10.7 0.9
**
11.0 10.3 0.7
**
7 7 Lower lip margin 9.5 11.9 2.4
**
11.0 12.2 1.2
**
12.8 12.4 0.3
8 8 Chin–lip fold 8.8 10.0 1.3
**
10.8 10.1 0.6
**
12.3 11.1 1.2
**
9 9 Mental eminence 7.0 9.0 2.0
**
11.3 9.7 1.5
**
14.0 11.7 2.3
**
10 10 Beneath chin 4.5 5.4 0.9
**
7.3 6.2 1.0
**
10.8 7.5 3.2
**
11 11 Frontal eminence 3.0 3.8 0.8
**
4.3 4.2 0.0 5.5 5.1 0.4
**
12 12 Supraorbital 6.3 4.7 1.5
**
8.3 5.2 3.1
**
10.3 6.5 3.8
**
15 13 Suborbital 2.8 7.7 5.0
**
5.8 8.6 2.9
**
8.3 10.6 2.3
**
16 14 Inferior malar 8.5 14.8 6.3
**
13.3 16.6 3.4
**
15.3 20.8 5.6
**
23 17 Supraglenoid 4.3 9.0 4.8
**
8.5 9.7 1.2
**
11.3 10.6 0.7
**
24 16 Zygomatic arch 3.0 4.9 1.9
**
7.3 5.8 1.5
**
11.8 8.1 3.6
**
25 15 lateral orbit 5.0 6.7 1.7
**
10.0 7.5 2.5
**
13.8 10.6 3.2
**
26 19 Supra-M2 12.0 23.7 11.7
**
19.5 24.9 5.4
**
25.0 29.6 4.6
**
28 20 Occlusal line 12.0 17.9 5.9
**
18.3 19.3 1.0
**
23.5 22.3 1.2
**
29 21 Sub-M2 10.0 16.5 6.5
**
16.0 17.3 1.3
**
19.8 21.6 1.8
**
30 18 Gonion 4.5 13.7 9.2
**
11.5 14.4 2.9
**
17.5 18.8 1.3
**
Females
Point numbers and description Slender Normal Obese
KUL RHI RHI, 3 KUL, 93 DIFF pRHI, 19 KUL, 268 DIFF pRHI, 3 KUL, 154 DIFF p
1 1 Supraglabella 2.5 3.9 1.4
**
3.5 4.2 0.7
**
4.3 4.7 0.5
**
2 2 Glabella 4.0 4.7 0.7
**
4.8 5.1 0.3
**
7.5 5.6 1.9
**
3 3 Nasion 5.3 5.8 0.6
**
5.5 6.4 0.9
**
7.0 6.9 0.1
4 4 End of nasals 2.3 2.5 0.3
**
2.8 2.5 0.2
**
4.3 2.9 1.4
**
5 5 Mid-philtrum 5.0 9.3 4.3
**
8.5 9.2 0.7
**
9.0 9.1 0.1
6 6 Upper lip margin 6.3 9.3 3.1
**
9.0 9.7 0.7
**
11.0 9.1 1.9
**
7 7 Lower lip margin 8.5 10.5 2.0
**
10.0 10.8 0.8
**
12.3 10.8 1.4
**
8 8 Chin–lip fold 9.3 9.4 0.2 9.5 10.0 0.5
**
13.8 10.6 3.1
**
9 9 Mental eminence 8.5 9.1 0.6
**
10.0 9.8 0.2 14.3 11.5 2.7
**
10 10 Beneath chin 3.8 5.6 1.9
**
5.8 5.9 0.1 9.0 7.1 1.9
**
11 11 Frontal eminence 2.8 3.8 1.0
**
3.5 4.1 0.6
**
5.0 4.8 0.2
**
12 12 Supraorbital 5.3 5.0 0.3
**
7.0 5.4 1.6
**
10.0 6.4 3.6
**
15 13 Suborbital 4.0 9.2 5.2
**
6.0 9.6 3.6
**
8.5 10.6 2.1
**
16 14 Inferior malar 7.0 16.1 9.1
**
12.8 18.2 5.5
**
14.0 20.8 6.8
**
23 17 Supraglenoid 4.3 8.7 4.5
**
8.0 9.3 1.3
**
10.5 10.4 0.1
24 16 Zygomatic arch 3.5 5.9 2.4
**
7.5 6.9 0.6
**
13.0 8.7 4.3
**
25 15 lateral orbit 6.0 8.9 2.9
**
10.8 9.9 0.9
**
14.8 12.4 2.4
**
26 19 Supra-M2 12.0 25.1 13.1
**
19.3 26.5 7.2
**
23.8 29.2 5.4
**
28 20 Occlusal line 11.0 18.1 7.1
**
17.0 18.8 1.8
**
20.3 21.3 1.1
**
29 21 Sub-M2 9.5 18.0 8.5
**
15.5 18.9 3.4
**
18.8 21.7 2.9
**
30 18 Gonion 5.0 13.3 8.3
**
12.0 14.1 2.1
**
17.5 17.4 0.1
p= significance level of the t-test.
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S140
Table 8a
Comparison of the De Greef et al. (KUL) tissue depth measurements with the Helmer (HEL) study (1984) for women
Point numbers and description 20–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years 50–59 years 60+ years
KUL HEL HEL,
12
KUL,
172
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
13
KUL,
72
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
11
KUL,
64
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
15
KUL,
74
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
11
KUL,
87
DIFF P1 P2
1 3 Supraglabella 4.5 4.0 0.5
**
4.5 4.1 0.4
** *
4.6 4.3 0.3
*
4.7 4.5 0.2 5.2 4.3 0.9
** *
2 5 Glabella 5.5 5.0 0.5
**
5.7 4.9 0.8
** *
5.9 4.9 1.0
**
6.0 5.3 0.7
** *
6.5 5.4 1.1
** *
3 6 Nasion 6.9 6.1 0.8
**
6.5 5.9 0.6
**
6.2 6.4 0.2 6.5 6.6 0.1 6.5 7.0 0.5
**
4 8 End of nasal 2.3 2.4 0.1
**
2.5 2.4 0.1 2.4 2.4 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.3
** *
2.5 2.4 0.1
5 11 Mid-philtrum 13.8 9.6 4.2
** *
12.8 8.9 3.9
** *
12.6 8.5 4.1
** *
13.2 8.2 5.0
** *
12.2 8.4 3.8
** *
6 12 Upper lip margin 11.8 9.8 2.0
** *
10.7 9.2 1.5
** *
10.5 8.7 1.8
** *
10.0 9.0 1.0
**
9.8 9.3 0.5
7 13 Lower lip margin 12.0 10.6 1.4
** *
12.0 10.5 1.5
** *
12.5 10.2 2.3
** *
11.8 10.4 1.4
** *
11.5 10.8 0.7
**
8 14 Chin–lip fold 10.4 9.7 0.7
** *
10.8 9.9 0.9
** *
12.3 10.2 2.1
** *
12.8 10.6 2.2
** *
11.5 11.0 0.5
*
9 15 Mental eminence 9.6 9.5 0.1 10.0 10.0 0.0 9.6 10.1 0.5
*
11.3 10.6 0.7
*
12 10.9 1.1
**
10 16 Beneath chin 7.1 5.6 1.5
** *
7.2 5.9 1.3
** *
6.9 5.6 1.3
**
8.0 6.2 1.8
** *
8.7 7.0 1.7
** *
11 17 Frontal eminence 5.2 3.9 1.3
** *
5.0 4.2 0.8
** *
5.3 4.2 1.1
**
5.0 4.7 0.3
** *
5.3 4.5 0.8
** *
12 18 Supraorbital 6.6 5.2 1.4
** *
6.5 5.4 1.1
** *
7.4 5.5 1.9
** *
6.7 5.8 0.9
** *
6.8 5.8 1.0
** *
14 9 Lateral nasal
a
7.0 3.7 3.3
** *
6.3 3.6 2.7
** *
6.7 3.6 3.1
** *
6.5 3.7 2.8
** *
7.3 3.8 3.5
** *
15 19 Suborbital 5.5 9.5 4.0
** *
5.5 9.4 3.9
** *
5.4 9.4 4.0
** *
6.0 10.4 4.4
** *
6.3 10.2 3.9
** *
16 20 Inferior malar
a
18.8 17.7 1.1
** *
20.2 17.5 2.7
** *
19.1 18.8 0.3 20.7 20.1 0.6 22.3 20.6 1.7
**
17 10 Lateral nostril 11.6 9.4 2.2
** *
11.0 8.8 2.2
** *
11 8.9 2.1
** *
11.5 9.1 2.4
** *
11.5 9.4 2.1
** *
22 25 Mid lateral orbit 5.2 4.8 0.4
**
5.0 4.7 0.3 5.1 4.7 0.4 5.3 5.1 0.2 5.5 5.3 0.2
24 31 Zygomatic arch 4.8 6.8 2.0
** *
5.2 7.0 1.8
** *
5.4 6.9 1.5
** *
5.3 7.2 1.9
** *
5.2 7.5 2.3
** **
25 26 Lateral orbit
a
8.9 10.0 1.1
** *
9.0 10.3 1.3
** *
9.1 9.5 0.4
**
9.0 11.5 2.5
** *
10.3 10.5 0.2
26 21 Supra-M2
a
19.2 27.2 8.0
** *
21.5 25.9 4.4
** *
20.5 26.3 5.8
** *
19.3 28.6 9.3
** *
20.5 27.8 7.3
** **
27 32 Mid-mas. muscle
a
17.2 17.3 0.1 18.3 17.1 1.2
**
17.8 16.9 0.9 17.3 18.0 0.7 19.2 16.6 2.6
**
29 22 Sub-M2
a
16.6 18.6 2.0
**
19.0 18.0 1.0
*
18 19.2 1.2
**
17.7 19.6 1.9
** *
19 21.3 2.3
** **
30 33 Gonion 9.2 14.3 5.1
** *
9.0 14.6 5.6
** *
9.1 15.6 6.5
** *
9.0 15.5 6.5
** *
10.3 15.0 4.7
**
31 28 Mid mand. angle 10.7 11.6 0.9
**
11.5 11.5 0.0 11.8 12.3 0.5
*
12.0 13.9 1.9
** *
13.7 15.3 1.6
**
P1 = significance level of the Wilcoxon rank test; P2 = significance level of the alternative test, testing if the median values of our study fall within the 95% confidence intervals for the median as reported by Helmer.
a
Landmark with a slight different localisation between the two studies.
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S141
Table 8b
Comparison of the De Greef et al. (KUL) tissue depth measurements with the Helmer (HEL) study (1984) for men
Point numbers and description 20–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years 50–59 years 60+ years
KUL HEL HEL,
13
KUL,
188
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
14
KUL,
71
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
13
KUL,
60
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
11
KUL,
63
DIFF P1 P2 HEL,
10
KUL,
50
DIFF P1 P2
1 3 Supraglabella 5.0 4.1 0.9
** *
5.0 4.2 0.8
** *
5.0 4.9 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.0 4.8 4.6 0.2
2 5 Glabella 5.7 4.9 0.8
** *
6.2 4.8 1.4
** *
6.0 5.5 0.5
**
6.0 5.7 0.3
*
6.3 5.4 0.9
**
3 6 Nasion 8.2 5.8 2.4
** *
7.3 6.1 1.2
** *
6.8 6.5 0.3 7.3 7.1 0.2 7.1 6.9 0.2
4 8 End of nasal 2.3 2.7 0.4
**
2.5 2.7 0.2
**
2.7 3.0 0.3
**
2.8 3.0 0.2
*
2.6 3.2 0.6
**
5 11 Mid-philtrum 15.5 10.9 4.6
** *
14.6 10.3 4.3
** *
15.6 10.1 5.5
** *
14.3 10.2 4.1
** *
12.9 9.6 3.3
** *
6 12 Upper lip margin 14.0 10.7 3.3
** *
12.3 10.0 2.3
** *
12.6 10.2 2.4
** *
11.8 9.7 2.1
** *
9.9 9.2 0.7
7 13 Lower lip margin 14.2 12.2 2.0
** *
14.9 12.3 2.6
** *
14.2 12.3 1.9
**
13.0 11.7 1.3
** *
12.7 11.7 1.0
8 14 Chin–lip fold 12.0 10.1 1.9
** *
12.1 10.1 2.0
** *
13.3 11.1 2.2
** *
13.0 11.1 1.9
** *
12.7 10.9 1.8
** *
9 15 Mental eminence 9.7 9.5 0.2 10.3 10.2 0.1 11.7 11.4 0.3 13.7 11.5 2.2
**
12.3 11.8 0.5
10 16 Beneath chin 7.5 6.1 1.4
** *
8.3 6.3 2.0
** *
9.5 6.6 2.9
** *
9.8 6.8 3.0
** *
8.9 7.4 1.5
** *
11 17 Frontal eminence 5.5 4.2 1.3
** *
6.0 4.2 1.8
** *
5.5 4.9 0.6
** *
6.0 4.8 1.2
** *
6.2 4.7 1.5
** *
12 18 Supraorbital 7.3 5.1 2.2
** *
7.3 5.4 1.9
** *
7.2 5.9 1.3
** *
7.5 6.3 1.2
**
6.7 6.2 0.5
*
14 9 Lateral nasal
a
7.5 3.7 3.8
** *
7.4 3.6 3.8
** *
7.3 3.9 3.4
** *
8.2 3.8 4.4
** *
6.7 4.2 2.5
** *
15 19 Suborbital 5.2 8.4 3.2
** *
5.0 8.9 3.9
** *
5.8 9.7 3.9
** *
5.5 10.7 5.2
** *
5.8 10.6 4.8
** *
16 20 Inferior malar
a
18.8 15.8 3.0
** *
19.7 17.8 1.9
**
21.5 20.2 1.3
*
21.8 19.9 1.9
**
21.5 21.8 0.3
17 10 Lateral nostril 13.3 10.1 3.2
** *
11.7 9.5 2.2
** *
12.2 9.8 2.4
** *
12.5 9.7 2.8
** **
11.9 9.6 2.3
** *
22 25 Mid lateral orbit 5.3 4.6 0.7
** *
5.2 4.7 0.5
** *
5.8 5.1 0.7
**
5.7 5.0 0.7
** *
5.6 4.9 0.7
**
24 31 Zygomatic arch 5.3 5.7 0.4
** *
5.3 6.2 0.9
**
5.5 6.9 1.4
** **
5.5 7.5 2.0
** *
5.0 7.6 2.6
**
25 26 Lateral orbit
a
7.5 7.3 0.2 7.6 9.0 1.4
** *
6.8 9.1 2.3
** *
8.0 9.4 1.4
** *
7.5 9.9 2.4
** *
26 21 Supra-M2
a
20.2 25.4 5.2
** *
22.0 26.4 4.4
** *
21.7 28.1 6.4
** *
22.3 28.1 5.8
** *
18.8 30.4 11.6
** *
27 32 Mid-mas. muscle
a
19.2 17.4 1.8
**
21.3 19.2 2.1
**
20.4 20.9 0.5 20.5 20.2 0.3 20.6 19.3 1.3
*
29 22 Sub-M2
a
19.0 17.2 1.8
**
18.5 18.2 0.3 18.3 20.5 2.2
**
18.3 20.1 1.8
** *
17.2 21.3 4.1
** *
30 33 Gonion 9.2 14.4 5.2
** *
10.1 15.7 5.6
** *
10.2 17.0 6.8
** *
12.0 17.5 5.5
** *
10.3 17.6 7.3
** *
31 28 Mid mand. angle 12.0 9.9 2.1
** *
11.9 11.3 0.6 12.8 13.7 0.9 14.2 13.8 0.4 13.4 15.5 2.1
** *
P1 = significance level of the Wilcoxon rank test; P2 = significance level of the alternative test, testing if the median values of our study fall within the 95% confidence intervals for the median as reported by Helmer.
a
Landmark with a slight different localisation between the two studies.
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.
4. Discussion
The present study has produced a set of facial soft tissue
depth measurements for the contemporary adult Caucasian
population. This new dataset is an upgrade of the traditional
datasets in the number of landmarks and in the finer subdivision
of the tested population according to age and BMI.
Statistical tests, comparing the traditional studies with the
present study, showed a majority of the measurements being
significantly different. Due to the lack of raw data of the
traditional studies, we were forced to use fairly weak tests based
on comparison of our measurements to the reported means and
medians. Furthermore, these tests do not take into account the
variation of the measurements in the traditional studies since
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S142
Table 9
Comparison of the De Greef et al. (KUL) tissue depth measurements with the Manhein (MAN) study (2000)
Point numbers and description Males
KUL MAN 19–34 Years 35–45 Years 46–55 Years >56 Years
MAN,
28
KUL,
163
DIFF P MAN,
10
KUL,
32
DIFF P MAN,
5
KUL,
21
DIFF P MAN,
5
KUL,
19
DIFF P
2 1 Glabella 5.0 4.9 0.1 5.5 4.9 0.6
**
6.0 5.3 0.7
**
5.6 5.4 0.2
3 2 Nasion 6.0 5.9 0.1 6.4 6.0 0.4
*
7.2 6.4 0.8
*
6.6 6.7 0.1
4 3 End of nasal 1.9 2.8 0.9
**
2.4 2.8 0.4
**
1.8 3.0 1.2
**
2.0 3.1 1.1
**
5 5 Mid-philtrum 11.9 11.2 0.7
**
10.6 10.2 0.4 8.0 9.7 1.7
**
9.4 9.7 0.3
8 6 Chin–lip fold 11.1 10.0 1.1
**
13.1 10.6 2.5
**
11.6 10.6 1.0
*
12.2 10.3 1.9
**
9 7 Mental eminence 10.0 9.4 0.6
**
12.0 10.5 1.5
**
11.0 10.6 0.4 11.8 10.4 1.4
10 8 Beneath chin 7.2 6.1 1.1
**
8.0 6.2 1.8
**
7.2 6.4 0.8
*
5.6 6.6 1.0
*
33 9 Supraorbital 5.3 5.0 0.3
**
5.9 5.1 0.8
**
7.7 5.6 2.1
**
5.6 5.8 0.2
36 10 Suborbital 5.8 8.2 2.4
**
6.2 9.4 3.2
**
6.8 9.9 3.1
**
5.0 9.3 4.3
**
38 4 Lateral nostril 7.5 9.9 2.4
**
9.8 9.7 0.1 10.4 9.3 1.1
*
10.8 10.1 0.7
40 11
*
Supra canina
a
11.9 10.3 1.6
**
10.1 10.2 0.1 10.0 9.4 0.6 9.2 9.0 0.2
41 12
*
Sub canina
a
11.5 10.3 1.2
**
10.2 10.7 0.5
*
10.0 10.6 0.6 11.8 10.1 1.7
**
43 16 Mid lateral orbit 4.2 4.6 0.4
**
4.3 4.9 0.6
*
5.4 4.9 0.5
*
5.2 4.5 0.7
**
45 19 Zygomatic arch 7.8 5.6 2.2
**
6.6 6.0 0.6
*
5.4 6.2 0.8
**
5.2 6.1 0.9
*
46 17 Lateral orbit 7.8 7.3 0.5
**
8.2 8.0 0.2 8.2 8.3 0.1 6.4 7.6 1.2
**
47 13 Supra-M2 28.5 24.7 3.8
**
24.6 25.3 0.7 28.2 25.6 2.6
**
23.6 24.3 0.7
50 14 Sub-M2 25.1 17.0 8.1
**
21.1 17.8 3.3
**
21.4 18.0 3.4
**
20.6 19.2 1.4
51 18 Gonion 20.0 14.4 5.6
**
19.6 15.2 4.4
**
19.0 14.2 4.8
**
14.0 13.6 0.4
52 15 Mid mand. angle 14.8 9.8 5.0
**
15.6 11.1 4.5
**
15.4 11.9 3.5
**
11.4 12.3 0.9
Females
Point numbers and description 19–34 Years 35–45 Years 46–55 Years >56 Years
KUL MAN MAN,
52
KUL,
141
DIFF pMAN,
15
KUL,
34
DIFF pMAN,
6
KUL,
31
DIFF pMAN,
9
KUL,
47
DIFF p
2 1 Glabella 4.8 5.1 0.3
**
4.7 4.9 0.2
*
4.8 4.7 0.1 5.2 5.3 0.1
3 2 Nasion 5.5 6.2 0.7
**
5.3 6.3 1.0
**
6.2 6.2 0.0 6.0 7.1 1.1
**
4 3 End of nasal 1.8 2.6 0.8
**
1.6 2.5 0.9
**
1.8 2.6 0.8
**
1.8 2.5 0.7
**
5 5 Mid-philtrum 9.1 9.7 0.6
**
7.4 8.9 1.5
**
8.0 7.9 0.1 8.0 8.2 0.2
8 6 Chin–lip fold 10.3 9.7 0.6
**
9.6 10.6 1.0
**
9.8 10.1 0.3 11.4 10.6 0.8
**
9 7 Mental eminence 9.2 9.6 0.4
*
9.2 10.4 1.2
**
10.7 9.4 1.3
**
12.3 10.5 1.8
**
10 8 Beneath chin 6.0 5.6 0.4
**
5.4 6.1 0.7
*
6.7 5.3 1.4
**
8.0 6.9 1.1
**
33 9 Supraorbital 5.7 5.4 0.3
**
5.5 5.3 0.2 6.5 5.2 1.3
**
6.3 5.5 0.8
**
36 10 Suborbital 6.1 9.3 3.2
**
5.7 10.3 4.6
**
7.3 9.1 1.8
**
7.0 10.3 3.3
**
38 4 Lateral nostril 8.6 9.2 0.6
**
8.0 9.4 1.4
**
10.8 8.7 2.1
**
9.8 9.3 0.5
*
40 11
*
Supra canina
a
9.3 9.3 0.0 7.8 8.6 0.8
*
7.7 8.1 0.4 8.0 8.1 0.1
41 12
*
Sub canina
a
9.4 10.1 0.7
**
8.7 10.8 2.1
**
9.0 9.9 0.9
**
9.7 10.9 1.2
**
43 16 Mid lateral orbit 4.7 4.9 0.2
*
4.3 4.8 0.5
*
4.5 5.0 0.5
*
4.9 5.0 0.1
45 19 Zygomatic arch 7.4 6.9 0.5
**
4.9 6.7 1.8
**
6.0 7.4 1.4
**
7.4 6.5 0.9
**
46 17 Lateral orbit 9.3 9.8 0.5
**
8.7 10.0 1.3
**
10.2 9.6 0.6 11.0 9.8 1.2
**
47 13 Supra-M2 26.3 26.2 0.1 25.1 26.6 1.5
*
27.2 26.8 0.4 29.4 27.1 2.3
**
50 14 Sub-M2 23.4 18.6 4.8
**
20.1 18.4 1.7
*
21.7 18.4 3.3
**
27.2 20.6 6.6
**
51 18 Gonion 17.4 14.4 3.0
**
15.3 14.3 1.0 14.7 14.0 0.7 16.9 13.6 3.3
**
52 15 Mid mand. angle 13.7 11.3 2.4
**
12.6 11.4 1.2
**
13.0 11.3 1.7
**
17.4 13.6 3.8
**
p= significance level of the t-test.
a
Landmark with a slight different localisation between the two studies.
*
p<0.05.
**
p<0.01.
this was either not available [2] or only reported as ranges and
confidence intervals on the median [3]. However, the relatively
high number of observations per subcategory in our study
makes the tests very sensitive such that even very small
differences become statistically significant. Notwithstanding
this, the lack of coherence between the older datasets and ours
can be attributed to a number of factors. First, as mentioned
before, the small amount of subjects in most of the
subpopulations in the traditional studies. Second, in ex-vivo
studies post-mortem alterations such as dehydration and
putrification have an impact on the soft tissue depths, despite
the freshness of the cadavers. Third, post-mortem measure-
ments correspond to supine subject positioning coding also for
gravity-related influences, which was also shown during the
validation study [1] revealing discrepancies in those regions
that are influenced the most by gravitational differences
between the supine (CT) and upright (our protocol) measure-
ment positioning. Finally, the criteria to define the subpopula-
tions in our dataset, to compare with the corresponding
subpopulation in the older data, play an important role in the
differences observed. This is especially true in the comparison
with the Rhine and Moore study where body posture definitions
(slender, normal, obese) are based on visual assessment and are
not perfectly matched to the three BMI categories (<20,
20<>25, >25) defined in our study. The Manhein study
appeared to correspond better to our study than the Helmer
study, although both divided their subpopulation based on
gender and age. However, in the selection of the Manhein
population, an extra BMI criterion (20–25) was used, since they
reported on White adults of ‘‘normal’’ weight. Such a body
posture selection was not performed in the Helmer study.
From the craniofacial approximation point of view these last
observations indicate that narrowing down the scope of the
selected subpopulation will probably approximate more the
correct tissue depth necessary to produce a more accurate
approximation.
Although the tests on bilateral symmetry indicated about
half of the lateral landmarks to be statistically different left
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S143
Fig. 4. Facial outlook of the Rhine and Moore subcategories based on the original results (left), the results of De Greef et al. (middle) and the difference between them
color-coded (right) based on the common landmarks (black).
versus right, the values are so small both in absolute (<1 mm)
and relative (<6%) values to be most probably not significant
from a cranio-facial approximation point of view. As a result, in
the final tables we report only the lateral values measured on the
right side of the face of all individuals (N= 967). The
regression equations showed that the influence of the BMI as
coded by the partial regression coefficient (b
2
) is typically, but
not systematically, higher than the influence of age (b
1
), even
when corrected for the relative differences in standard deviation
of BMI and age (a factor of about 4). This also confirms the
importance to dissociate the individual properties of the
subjects, especially when studying the impact of gender, age or
BMI on the facial soft tissue depth measurements. However,
although some initial observations have been formulated on
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S144
Fig. 5. Facial outlook of the Helmer subcategories based on the original results (left), the results of De Greef et al. (middle) and the difference between them color-
coded (right) based on the common landmarks (black).
such possible effects, any formal statistical analysis, sub-
stantiating these observations in conjunction with a multivariate
statistical analysis of the data, exploring statistically significant
covariations of soft tissue depths at different landmarks, e.g., is
beyond the scope of this paper.
5. Conclusions
In order to increase the degree of accuracy of cranio-facial
approximations, a validated dataset with an increased number
of landmarks, coding for more refined subject-specific
attributes is provided. Not only will this allow a better
determination of the facial contours, it opens new perspectives
in understanding the relation between the physical properties of
the subject and his facial soft tissue depths.
Forensic facial approximation is a discipline that tradition-
ally combines art and science. A correct soft tissue envelope
with individual variations will never be accurately determined
using average tissue depth data [9]. By providing the forensic
artist with more refined tissue depth data as presented in this
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146 S145
Fig. 6. Facial outlook of the Manhein subcategories based on the original results (left), the results of De Greef et al. (middle) and the difference between them color-
coded (right) based on the common landmarks (black).
paper, we conjecture that more subject-specific cranio-facial
reconstructions can be obtained on a more scientific basis.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Flemish Institute for the
Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in
Flanders (IWT, project IWT/GBOU/020195), by the K.U.
Leuven (project/OF/GOA/2004/05) and by the Fund for
Scientific Research—Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen, project
FWO/G.0258.02). The authors also acknowledge the support
of Dr. Marleen Thijs (Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium) in
providing advice on ultrasound measurements and of Jo
Verbinnen and Peter Geens (anatomy section KU Leuven) for
their assistance during the cadaver training period.
References
[1] S. De Greef, P. Claes, W. Mollemans, M. Loubele, D. Vandermeulen, P.
Suetens, G. Willems, Semi-automated ultrasound facial soft tissue depth
registration: method and validation, J. Forensic Sci. 50 (2005).
[2] J.S. Rhine, C.E. Moore, Tables of facial tissue thickness of American
Caucasoids in forensic anthropology, Maxwell Mus. Tech. Ser. 1 (1984)
(cited in [8]).
[3] R. Helmer, Scha
¨delidentifizierung durch elektronische bildmischung,
Kriminalistik Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, 1984.
[4] M.H. Manhein, G.A. Listi, R.E. Barsley, R. Musselman, N.E. Barrow,
D.H. Ubelbaker, In vivofacial tissue depth measurements for children and
adults, J. Forensic Sci. 45 (2000) 48–60.
[5] M. Gerasimov, The Face Finder, JB Lippencott Co., Philadelphia, PA,
1971.
[6] W.A. Aulsebrook, M.Y. Iscan, J.H. Slabbert, P. Becker, Superimposition
and reconstruction in forensic facial identification: a survey, Forensic Sci.
Int. 75 (1995) 101–120.
[7] J. Prag, R. Neave, Making Faces, British Museum Press, London, 1997.
[8] K.T. Taylor, Forensic Art and Illustration, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2001.
[9] C. Wilkinson, Forensic Facial Reconstruction, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2004.
[10] S. De Greef, G. Willems, Three-dimensional cranio-facial reconstruction
in forensic identification: latest progress and new tendencies in the 21st
century, J. Forensic Sci. 50 (2005) 12–17.
[11] C.N. Stephan, Facial approximation: globe projection guideline falsified
by exophtalmometry literature, J. Forensic Sci. 47 (2002) 1–6.
[12] C.M. Wilkinson, S.A. Mautner, Measurement of eyeball protrusion and its
application in facial reconstruction, J. Forensic Sci. 48 (2003) 1–5
(technical note).
[13] C.N. Stephan, Position of superciliare in relation to the lateral iris testing a
suggested facial approximation guideline, Forensic Sci. Int. 130 (2002)
29–33.
[14] C.M. Wilkinson, M. Motwani, E. Chiang, The relationship between soft
tissues and the skeletal detail of the mouth, J. Forensic Sci. 48 (2003)
(technical note).
[15] C.N. Stephan, Facial approximation: an evaluation of mouth width
determination, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121 (2003).
[16] C.N. Stephan, M. Henneberg, Predicting mouth width from inter-canine
width—a 75% rule, J. Forensic Sci. 48 (2003) 1–3 (technical note).
[17] C.N. Stephan, M. Henneberg, Sampson, Predicting nose projection and
pronasale position in facial approximation: a test of published methods
and proposal of new guidelines, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 122 (2003) 240–
250.
[18] T.N. Garlie, Midline facial tissue thicknesses of subadults from long-
itudinal radiographic study, J. Forensic Sci. 44 (1999) 61–67.
[19] S.L. Smith, P.H. Buschang, Midsagittal facial thicknesses of children and
adolescents from the Montreal growth study, J. Forensic Sci. 46 (2001)
1294–1302.
[20] M.A. Williamson, S.P. Nawrocki, T.A. Rathburn, Variation in midfacial
tissue thickness of African-American children, J. Forensic Sci. 47 (2002)
25–31.
[21] C.M. Wilkinson, In vivo facial tissue depth measurements for White
British children, J. Forensic Sci. 47 (2002) 459–465.
[22] H. Utsuno, T. Kageyama, T. Deguchi, M. Yoshino, H. Miyazawa, K.
Inoue, Facial soft tissue thickness in Japanese female children, Forensic
Sci. Int. 152 (2005) 101–107.
[23] I.H. El-Mehallawi, E.M. Soliman, Ultrasonic assessment of facial soft
tissue thicknesses in adult Egyptians, Forensic Sci. Int. 117 (2001) 99–
107.
[24] G. Arcudi, V. Cervelli, A. De Luna, M. Massimilla, A. Pujia, G. Guerra, E.
Bruno, Dual X-ray absorptiometry for estimating the volume of the soft
tissue in the human skull, Acta Diabetol. 40 (2003) 89–90.
[25] S.L. Smith, G.S. Throckmorton, A new technique for three-dimensional
ultrasound scanning of facial tissues, J. Forensic Sci. 49 (2004) 451–457.
[26] K.D. Kim, A. Ruprecht, G. Wang, J.B. Lee, D.V. Dawson, M.W. Vannier,
Accuracy of facial soft tissue thickness measurements in personal com-
puter-based multiplanar reconstructed computed tomographic images,
Forensic Sci. Int. 155 (2005) 28–34.
[27] G. Quatrehomme, S. Cotin, G. Subsol, H. Delingette, Y. Garidel, G.
Gre
´vin, M. Fidrich, P. Bailet, A. Ollier, A fully three-dimensional method
for facial reconstruction based on deformable models, J. Forensic Sci. 42
(1997) 649–652.
[28] L.A. Nelson, S.D. Michael, The application of volume deformation to
three-dimensional facial reconstruction: a comparison with previous
techniques, Forensic Sci. Int. 94 (1998) 167–181.
[29] J.G. Clement, M.K. Marks (Eds.), Computer-graphic Facial Reconstruc-
tion, Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.
[30] P.W. Holland, R.E. Welsch, Robust regression using iteratively reweighted
least-squares, Comm. Stat. Theor. Methods A6 (1977) 813–827.
[31] P.I. Good, Resampling Methods: A Practical Guide to Data Analysis,
Birkha
¨user, Boston, 1999.
[32] P. Claes, D. Vandermeulen, S. De Greef, G. Willems, P Suetens, Statis-
tically deformable face models for cranio-facial reconstruction, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Image and Signal
Processing and Analysis—ISPA2005, September 15–17, Zagreb, Croatia,
(2005), pp. 347–352.
S. De Greef et al. / Forensic Science International 159S (2006) S126–S146S146
