There are numerous anatomical and anthropometrical standards that can be utilised for craniofacial analysis and identification. These standards originate from a wide variety of sources, such as orthodontic, maxillofacial, surgical, anatomical, anthropological and forensic literature, and numerous media have been employed to collect data from living and deceased subjects. With the development of clinical imaging and the enhanced technology associated with this field, multiple methods of data collection have become accessible, including Computed Tomography, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Radiographs, Three-dimensional Scanning, Photogrammetry and Ultrasound, alongside the more traditional in vivo methods, such as palpation and direct measurement, and cadaveric human dissection. Practitioners often struggle to identify the most appropriate standards and research results are frequently inconsistent adding to the confusion. This paper aims to clarify how practitioners can choose optimal standards, which standards are the most reliable and when to apply these standards for craniofacial identification. This paper describes the advantages and disadvantages of each mode of data collection and collates published research to review standards across different populations for each facial feature. This paper does not aim to be a practical instruction paper; since this field encompasses a wide range of 2D and 3D approaches (e.g., clay sculpture, sketch, automated, computer-modelling), the implementation of these standards is left to the individual practitioner.
Keywords: Craniofacial; Facial reconstruction/approximation; Forensic; Standards.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.