<XML><RECORDS><RECORD><REFERENCE_TYPE>0</REFERENCE_TYPE><REFNUM>8501</REFNUM><AUTHORS><AUTHOR>White,J.E.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Ayoub,A.F.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Hosey,M.T.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Bock,M.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Bowman,A.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Bowman,J.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Siebert,J.P.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Ray,A.</AUTHOR></AUTHORS><YEAR>2004</YEAR><TITLE>Three-dimensional facial characteristics of Caucasian infants without cleft and correlation with body measurements.</TITLE><PLACE_PUBLISHED>Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004 Nov;41(6):593-602.</PLACE_PUBLISHED><PUBLISHER>N/A</PUBLISHER><PAGES>593-602</PAGES><LABEL>White:2004:8501</LABEL><KEYWORDS><KEYWORD>Caucasian</KEYWORD></KEYWORDS<ABSTRACT>Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize the soft tissue facial features of infants without cleft and to report on the correlation between these with weight, length, and head circumference. Design: This was a prospective study using a noninvasive three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry (C3D) system to capture the images of the participants. Landmarks were identified on the 3D facial images. Means and SDs were derived for facial distances and angles. A facial asymmetry score was calculated for each image. Two sample Student's t tests, Pearson's correlation coefficients and analysis of covariance were used to ascertain any gender differences and determine whether these could be explained by weight differences. Participants: Eighty-three infants, 41 boys and 42 girls, were captured at rest with their lips apart, at approximately 3 months of age. Results: Significant sex differences, of 1 to 2 mm, were found in several facial dimensions, such as face height and nose width. The larger facial measurements correlated significantly with body measurements. Analysis of variance confirmed these differences could be explained by differences in weight. There were no sex differences in the nose/mouth width ratios or in any of the angles measured, suggesting that there may be little sex difference in shape. A slight degree of asymmetry in the faces of infants without cleft was detected. Conclusions: Comparisons between noncleft controls and infants with cleft should take cognizance of normal age and sex variations in height and weight that occur among infants.</ABSTRACT></RECORD></RECORDS></XML>