2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.jofri.2014.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CT scan images to determine the origin from craniofacial indices for Gujarati population

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The lower value of the index in males is due to the narrower forehead than to the unusual larger bizygomatic breadth. This index was also showed significant sexual differences in Thai [39] and Gujrati populations [79]. Gabel [46] found that the Fijian population have narrow zygofrontal index.…”
Section: Jugo Frontal Indexmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The lower value of the index in males is due to the narrower forehead than to the unusual larger bizygomatic breadth. This index was also showed significant sexual differences in Thai [39] and Gujrati populations [79]. Gabel [46] found that the Fijian population have narrow zygofrontal index.…”
Section: Jugo Frontal Indexmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Srivastava et al, [67] also evaluated living population of North India and found dominant nasal form is Leptorhine while Gujarati living population is mesorrhine [79] and South Indian population is hyperchamaerhinae [80].…”
Section: Nasal Indexmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the case of morphological facial index, the types of faces vary among the people of Indian states where people of Madhya Pradesh are Mesoprosopic [21], people of Bengal and Assam are Euryprosopic [22,23], people of Rajasthan are Hyperleptoprosopic [24], and people of Maharashtra [25] Gujarat are Leptoprosopic [26] and Sikkim are hyperleptoproscopic (present study). The values of the index for the population of other different countries make the people of Arab Mesoprosopic [27], people of Persia and Australia Hypereuryprosopic [28] and Malaysian Indians Mesoprosopic [29].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inada et al investigated nose region for reconstruction purposes, showing that the location of cephalometric nasal skin landmarks could be predicted based on skeletal ones [7]. Mehta et al also worked within the forensic scenario by studying differences among different Indian populations in terms of 11 osseous landmark-based craniofacial indexes [15]. Short et al adopted 24 soft-tissue landmarks to assess the accuracy of a computer modelled facial reconstruction technique using CBCT data from live subjects, for both forensic and archaeological purposes [16].…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%