Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.

e7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Forensic Anthropology Population Data

Facial soft tissue thicknesses in the present Czech Population

Anna Drgáčová a,*, Ján Dupej a,b, Jana Velemı́nská a
a
Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic
b
Department of Software and Computer Science Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The aim of this study was to find any relation between soft facial tissue thickness (FSTT) and sex, age and
Received 28 August 2015 asymmetry in the contemporary Czech population. The studied sample consisted of head CT scans of
Received in revised form 11 December 2015 102 adult Czech individuals between the ages of 21 and 83. Forty FSTTs were evaluated and analysed
Accepted 7 January 2016
using PCA, Hotelling’s T2 test, LDA, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, MANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and
Available online 15 January 2016
Wilcoxon’s paired test. The greatest sexual dimorphism was detected in the lower part of the face, which
had discriminant power almost the same as the entire faces (approximately 80%). On the other hand, a
Keywords:
significant influence of aging was shown, mostly in the area of the upper face (In females, twice as many
Forensic science
Forensic anthropology population data
landmarks displayed a significant influence, compared with males). The influence of asymmetry was
Craniofacial reconstruction confirmed in seven bilateral landmarks, five of them favouring the right side.
Soft tissue thickness ß 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Computer tomography
Sexual dimorphism

Knowledge of facial soft tissue thicknesses (FSTT) provides the
basis for any craniofacial reconstruction (CFR). The aim of CFR is to
produce a face that matches the underlying skull. This reconstructed
face can help in the recognition of an individual. Craniofacial
reconstruction cannot itself lead to positive identification of human
remains; however, it plays an important role in cases in which the
remains cannot be identified by DNA analysis, fingerprint compari-
son or dental record examination [1]. Knowledge of FSTT plays an
important role in other fields as well, for example, embryology or
aesthetic surgery [2]. The appearance of the face is modelled from
the skeletal remains on the basis of a known average FSTT in specific
anthropometric points [3]. FSTT in reality fluctuates within a specific
interval. The final value is dependent on the sex, age, population
group and constitution of the subject [4,5], among other aspects. The
different values are measured in living people and cadavers. Some
methods tend to generate higher values of FSTT; for example, the
radiography method generates higher values of FSTT in the medial
plane, and ultrasounds generate higher values on supra-M2, infra-
M2 or gonion landmarks [6]. The position of scanned subjects can be
important as well. Therefore, the comparison of different studies is
often extremely difficult.
* Corresponding author at: Lublaňská 34, 120 00 Prague 2, Czech Republic.
Tel.: +420 221 951 618; fax: +420 221 951 619.
E-mail address: drgan@seznam.cz (A. Drgáčová).
The studies monitoring FSTT are inspired by the assumption of
the large variability in faces. The reliability of CFR may be
negatively influenced by a lack of records about the thickness of
soft tissues in a specific population. For that reason, many new
studies have been performed aiming at data collection. Building a
database of specimens from various populations to establish the
reference values for FSTT is advantageous; however, it is equally
important to perform studies on a specific population and analyse
the intra- and inter-population variability.
Foreign studies focus primarily on sex and age dimorphism in
FSTT. Males typically have higher values than females on almost
all landmarks [2,5,7,8]. However, De Greef et al. [9] and Stephan
and Simpson [6] noticed that females reach higher levels of
dimorphism on the cheeks and males near the eyes and mouth
[9]. Significant differences were found in many studies [e.g.,
2,5,10–12], but greater variation has been detected within one
sex than between sexes [9,13]. The differences between males
and females are less than 2 mm on average; therefore, they are
not crucial for predicting the appearance of a face. Sexual
dimorphism in FSTT does not contribute to facial recognition;
however, it plays an important role in the improvement of
CFR [13].
Age-related changes in the face are caused mostly by external
factors [14,15]. Significant determinants of aging include body
mass index, smoking, sun exposure, use of antidepressants,
alcohol and drugs consumption and marital status [16–18]. The

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.01.011
0379-0738/ß 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
106.e2 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7

appearance of the face is also affected by changes in skeletal
structure and loss of volume in soft tissues [19]. Aging demon-
strates common traits in both sexes, but male faces exhibit more
intense aging changes (Sexually dimorphic traits tended to
diminish in the elderly age category) [20]. The least pronounced
changes were registered between the ages of 20 and 30, and the
most pronounced between the ages of 40 and 50. Soft tissues reveal
decreases in facial skin elasticity, the formation of skin folds and
wrinkles due to the loss of subcutaneous fat, and gravitation effects
[19]. Unfortunately, these age-related changes are extremely
variable and difficult to predict [21].
The asymmetry of FSTT has been the focus of relatively few
studies [e.g., 7,22]. De Greef et al. [23] noted probably the greatest
influence of asymmetry (50% from select landmarks). However,
asymmetry of the face is a commonly accepted fact, which forensic
papers should therefore consider.

Table 1
Definitions of soft and hard tissue landmarks.

Skeletal Landmark Definition Soft Tissue Definition

Landmark

Median Points
Glabella (g) The most anterior midline point on the Glabella’ (g’) The most anterior midline soft tissue point overlying the glabella
frontal bone
Nasion (n) Midline point on the naso-frontal Nasion’ (n’) The most posterior soft tissue point overlying the nasion
suture
Rhinion (rhi) Midline point at the inferior free end of Rhinion’ (rhi’) Midline soft tissue point directly above the hard tissue rhinion
the internasal suture
Spinale (sp) The most anterior midpoint of the Subnasale (sn) Midline point of the angle at the comulella base where the septum
anterior nasal spine of the maxilla and upper lip join
Subspinale (ss) The most posterior midline point on the Subspinale’ (ss’) The most posterior point between soft tissue subnasale and the
premaxilla between the anterior nasal vermilion border of the upper lip in the groove of the philtrum
spine and prosthion
Prosthion (pr) The most anterior point on the Labrale superius (ls) Midline soft tissue point at the vermilion border of upper lip
maxillary alveolar process, between the
central incisor teeth
Infradentale (id) The most anterior point of the alveolar Labrale inferius (li) Midline soft tissue point at the vermilion border of lower lip
process of the mandible
Supramentale (sm) Deepest midline point in the groove Supramentale’ (sm’) Deepest soft tissue point at the midline of the groove just superior
superior to the mental eminence to the chin
Pogonion (pg) The most anterior midline point on the Pogonion’ (pg’) The most anterior midline point on the eminence of the soft tissue
mental eminence of the mandible chin
Gnathion (gn) The most inferior midline point at the Gnathion’ (gn’) Midline soft tissue point directly overlying the gnathion
mental symphysis of the mandible

Bilateral Points
Orbitale superius The most superior point at the Orbitale superius’ (ors’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue orbitale
(ors) supraorbital margin superius
Ectoconchion (ec) The most lateral point at the lateral Ectoconchion’ (ec’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue ectoconchion
margin of orbit
Orbitale (or) The most inferior point at the Orbitale’ (or’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue orbitale
infraorbital margin
Zygion (zy) The most lateral extent of the lateral Zygion’ (zy’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue zygion
surface of the zygomatic arch
Jugale (ju) A craniometric point at the union of the Jugale’ (ju’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue jugale
temporal and frontal processes of the
zygomatic bone
Inferior malar (im) The deepest point at fossa canina Inferior malar’ (im’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue inferior malar
Alare (al) Most lateral point at the border of the Alare’ (al’) The most lateral point at alae nasi
nasal aperture
Supra canine (sC) Point on superior alveolar ridge Supra canine’ (sC’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue supra canine
superior to the crown of the maxillary
canine(s)
Infra canine (iC) Point on inferior alveolar ridge inferior Infra canine’ (iC’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue infra canine
to the crown of the mandibular
canine(s)
Supra M2 (sM2) Point on superior alveolar ridge Supra M20 (sM20 ) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue supra M2
superior to the crown of the maxillary
second molar(s)
Infra M2 (iM2) Point on inferior alveolar ridge inferior Infra M20 (iM20 ) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue infra M2
to the crown of the mandibular second
molar(s)
Gonion (go) Point on the lateral aspect of the border Gonion’ (go’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue gonion
of mandibular angle where a tangent
bisects the angle formed by the
posterior ramus border and the inferior
corpus border
Mentale (m) The most inferior point at border of Mentale’ (m’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue mentale
foramen mentale
Mid-ramus (mr) Point at the center of the mandibular Mid-ramus’ (mr’) Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue mid-ramus
ramus
Mid-mandibular Point on the inferior border of the Mid-mandibular Soft tissue point directly overlying the hard tissue mid-
border (mmb) corpus of the mandible midway border’ (mmb’) mandibular border
between pogonion and gonion
 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7
Our research was based on the measurement of soft tissue
depth using CT scans of 102 Czech adult individuals between the
ages of 21 and 83. The aim of this study was to determine the mean
and variability of FSTT in Czech adults and to expand the Central
European population FSTT sample. Our analyses were evaluated
with respect to sex, age and bilateral asymmetry of the face.
1. Material and methods
Our study was performed using CT scans from 102 adults,
including 56 males and 46 females. None of the patients had any
facial malformations [24], and the data were anonymous, tagged
only with the age and sex of the patients. All individuals were
treated at the Department of Radiology in Na Homolce Hospital,
Prague. Surface models of the heads were created using
reconstruction methods that employed virtual 3-D modelling
from the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine
(DICOM) image sequence of the CT outputs. The initial raw data
were acquired by scanning the heads of patients using a Somatom
Sensation 16 tomograph (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The slice
distance was 0.75 mm (0.4 mm kernel, H60). Patients gave
informed consent for the use of their CT images and data in this
study. The sample ranged in age from 21 to 83 years and was
divided into three age groups: 20–39 years, 40–59 years, and above
60 years.
Soft tissue depth was measured at 40 standard anthropological
landmarks on the head (see Table 1). The position of every
landmark was controlled in relation to three planes. The points in
Fig. 1. The complete set of landmarks. The line separates the face to upper and lower
part.
106.e3
the medial plane were defined on the hard and soft profiles
separately. Bilateral points were defined initially on the skull, and
the corresponding soft tissue landmarks were found in locations
proximate to the craniometric landmarks. The only exception was
the point alare, which was always placed on soft and hard tissues
separately. Landmark placement was performed by the first
author using the in-house software Morphome3cs (https://
www.natur.cuni.cz/biology/anthropology/veda-a-vyzkum/
morphome3cs-ii-en?set_language=en). Morphome3cs uses a ray
casting approach to place landmarks on an isosurface with a
defined density (http://www.cs.utah.edu/shirley/papers/iso/iso.
pdf). Thresholds for soft and hard tissues were set to 700 HU and
226 HU, respectively (http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/
bitstream/handle/1993/22023/Maltais%20Lapointe_Genevieve.
pdf?sequence=1). The measurements were taken perpendicular to
the craniometric points, following Vanezis [25] and Panenková
et al. [8]; the FSTT equals the length of the line projecting from the
skeletal to the facial point.
A complete set of landmarks was defined in only 54 speci-
mens. In some scans, landmark placement was impossible due to
beam-hardening artefacts caused by dental fillings. Therefore,
the data were split into 3 sets: data using all landmarks (31 males
and 23 females), data with the upper part of the face only
(55 males and 45 females) and data with the lower part of the
face (32 males and 23 females). The division of face is illustrated
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2. The results of sexual dimorphism of FSTT. The significant FSTT are displayed
by full points.
106.e4 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7

Measurement error was determined according to [26], using
5 repeated measurements of 5 specimens. The mean measurement
error was 0.778 mm.
General descriptive statistics were calculated first. Variability of
sex was tested using a non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on all three
sets. The first principal components were selected and tested using
Shapiro Wilk’s normality W test, Hotteling’s T2 test and linear
discriminant analysis (LDA). Scores on the first three principal
components were used for LDA, and this number was tested using
the broken-stick rule. The effect of age on tissue thickness was
evaluated using the Kruskal Wallis test performed separately on
each linear measurement and using multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) applied to the first three principal compo-
nents. The significance of soft tissue depth asymmetry at bilateral
points was tested using Wilcoxon’s paired test. Statistical
significance was set at a = 0.05.
All data were analysed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft
Corporation), PAST 1.99 (Natural History Museum, Oslo) and
Morphome3cs (Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of Charles
University, Prague). The results were compared with Panenkova
et al. [8] because of the geographical relationship between the
samples.
2. Results
2.1. Sexual dimorphism
The results with regard to sexual dimorphism in FSTT are
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2. Landmarks with significant sexually
dimorphic FSTT were situated primarily on the A lower part of the
face (all lower face landmarks with the exception of the mid-
mandibular border, gonion and infra M2 on the right side).
Significant FSTTs were detected also at almost all landmarks on or
near the midline, with the exception of glabella, and at nine
bilateral landmarks (mentale, supra canine, infra canine, supra M2,
infra M2 on the left side, alare, orbitale, orbitale superius and mid-
ramus). All significant soft tissue thicknesses are higher in males.

Table 2
The results of sex dimorphism (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).

Landmark Females Males K-S test

(p-value)
n Min Max Mean SD S-W test n Min Max Mean SD S-W test
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (p-value) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (p-value)

Glabella 46 3.662 9.505 6.019 1.315 0.506 56 3.991 9.659 6.298 1.165 0.022 0.155
Nasion 46 5.173 14.595 8.255 1.868 0.082 56 3.831 12.900 9.416 1.905 0.125 0.003*
Rhinion 46 1.587 4.766 2.618 0.627 0.009 56 2.168 4.690 3.115 0.633 0.001 0.004*
Spinale-Subnasale 46 6.723 14.458 9.848 1.947 0.022 56 7.206 19.019 11.518 2.255 0.013 0.001*
Subspinale 46 9.867 16.838 12.765 1.773 0.325 56 11.792 19.825 15.655 1.803 0.311 <0.001*
Prosthion-Labrale 43 7.462 17.335 11.128 1.966 0.230 47 4.312 20.638 13.707 2.689 0.216 <0.001*
superius
Infradentale-Labrale 43 9.716 18.215 14.151 1.962 0.773 49 12.24 23.871 16.351 2.104 0.096 <0.001*
inferius
Supramentale 46 8.513 14.642 10.939 1.420 0.049 56 10.061 16.602 12.514 1.559 0.004 <0.001*
Pogonion 46 7.309 17.384 11.767 2.197 0.671 56 7.510 22.995 13.542 2.641 0.004 0.002*
Gnathion 41 4.942 13.526 7.978 2.155 0.106 52 4.921 13.512 9.148 1.876 0.132 0.014*
Mentale (R) 46 6.063 18.029 12.053 2.430 0.925 56 9.988 19.193 14.170 2.081 0.177 <0.001*
Mentale (L) 46 6.057 16.885 11.560 2.386 0.668 56 8.891 17.737 13.342 2.229 0.060 0.003*
Gonion (R) 46 5.401 28.492 15.948 6.224 0.123 56 6.861 33.597 17.941 6.206 0.064 0.060
Gonion (L) 46 4.804 31.534 16.152 6.808 0.344 56 7.476 34.858 17.998 6.170 0.019 0.181
Supra canine (R) 40 5.318 12.725 8.438 1.762 0.323 47 7.417 15.657 11.035 1.679 0.641 <0.001*
Supra canine (L) 41 5.943 13.278 8.640 1.632 0.150 47 7.530 15.595 10.844 1.841 0.301 <0.001*
Infra canine (R) 43 5.898 13.672 9.316 1.724 0.022 50 6.701 14.846 10.476 1.913 0.142 0.002*
Infra canine (L) 43 6.215 13.394 8.943 1.713 0.003 50 6.845 15.208 9.947 1.825 0.018 0.013*
Supra M2 (R) 34 21.535 45.605 29.626 5.965 0.016 39 25.815 42.700 33.530 4.988 0.009 0.001*
Supra M2 (L) 34 19.707 40.365 29.414 4.823 0.657 39 24.638 46.431 32.162 4.765 0.071 0.041*
Infra M2 (R) 31 21.535 36.852 25.519 6.096 0.071 37 19.111 36.551 27.107 4.979 0.088 0.060
Infra M2 (L) 30 14.859 37.853 24.838 6.346 0.030 37 18.784 37.776 26.793 4.478 0.111 0.006*
Alare (R) 46 8.498 14.724 10.623 1.282 0.075 56 8.776 19.821 12.02 1.668 0.000 <0.001*
Alare (L) 46 7.681 14.778 10.690 1.401 0.812 56 8.667 21.929 12.357 1.985 0.000 <0.001*
Orbitale (R) 46 3.022 12.953 7.229 2.301 0.237 56 3.677 15.007 8.350 3.005 0.001 0.230
Orbitale (L) 46 2.897 12.648 7.479 2.547 0.133 56 3.596 16.169 8.370 3.204 0.000 0.593
Zygion (R) 46 4.556 14.586 9.174 2.882 0.016 56 4.315 17.680 8.491 2.440 0.002 0.357
Zygion (L) 46 4.718 16.839 9.197 3.164 0.024 56 4.934 16.300 8.770 2.874 0.000 0.322
Jugale (R) 46 6.555 16.489 10.565 2.458 0.026 56 6.048 15.095 10.367 2.372 0.001 0.458
Jugale (L) 46 6.007 16.630 10.270 2.554 0.061 56 5.128 16.134 9.721 2.532 0.005 0.607
Ectoconchion (R) 46 2.558 10.134 5.879 1.752 0.704 56 3.109 9.740 5.847 1.684 0.003 0.919
Ectoconchion (L) 46 3.244 9.858 5.857 1.560 0.026 56 3.262 9.946 5.856 1.767 0.000 0.540
Orbitale superius (R) 46 5.444 12.588 8.935 1.587 0.975 56 5.924 13.974 10.221 1.693 0.078 0.001*
Orbitale superius (L) 46 4.878 12.032 8.911 1.776 0.338 56 5.224 13.433 9.996 1.716 0.106 0.008*
Inferior malar (R) 46 11.826 35.187 17.460 3.826 0.000 56 10.794 26.948 18.060 3.123 0.023 0.136
Inferior malar (L) 46 13.577 25.723 17.913 2.651 0.090 56 11.898 25.769 18.200 2.864 0.068 0.872
Mid-ramus (R) 46 14.448 40.158 23.040 4.809 0.013 56 17.468 36.164 25.892 4.230 0.722 0.017*
Mid-ramus (L) 46 14.706 37.477 22.824 4.689 0.045 56 18.432 33.714 25.441 3.877 0.168 0.006*
Mid-mandibular 46 7.253 23.101 13.149 3.804 0.319 56 6.164 23.029 13.220 3.740 0.073 0.992
border (R)
Mid-mandibular 46 7.166 26.409 14.215 4.091 0.128 56 6.763 22.444 13.566 3.738 0.336 0.573
border (L)

S-W test = Shapiro-Wilk’s test normality, K-S test = Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

*
p < 0.05.
 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7 106.e5

Table 3
The results of LDA.

Part of face Success Number of successful Number of Success rate of Number of successful Number of
rate classifications (F/M) unsuccessful clasification with classifications (F/M) unsuccessful
classifications (F/M) cross-validation classifications (F/M)

% n % n % % N % n %

All face 85.19 19/27 82.61/87.10 4/4 17.39/12.90 81.48 18/25 78.26/80.65 5/6 21.74/19.35
Upper part of face 65.00 26/39 57.78/70.91 19/16 42.22/29.09 62.00 26/36 57.78/65.45 19/19 42.22/34.55
Lower part of face 87.27 18/30 78.26/93.75 5/2 21.74/6.25 80.00 17/27 73.91/84.38 6/5 26.09/15.62

Fig. 3. The results of age influence on FSTT variability (females on the left side, males on the right sides). The significant FSTT are displayed by full points.

On the basis of these results, sex classification using FSTT was The values in the buccal area (orbitale, jugale and inferior malar)
evaluated (see Table 3). The accuracy of sex classification was increased from the ages of 21 to 59 and then decreased. The
tested three times (for the face as a whole, the upper part of face significant values were often detected in the upper part of face for
and the lower part of face) using Hotelling’s T2 test and LDA with both sexes. This result was confirmed using MANOVA (p < 0.001).
cross-validation. Significant sexual dimorphism in FSTT was
detected for all groups (for the entire face p < 0.001, for the upper Table 4
part of face p = 0.004, and for the lower part of face p < 0.001). The The results of asymmetry (Wilcoxon’s paired test).
most accurate classification was obtained using all FSTT landmarks Landmark n Mean Mean Wilcoxon
(81.48%), but the discriminant power of only the lower face FSTT (mm) (mm) paired test
landmarks was almost the same (80%). Using landmarks in the (p-value)
upper part of face, the classification success rate dropped to 62%. Mentale 102 13.215 12.556 <0.001*
Gonion 102 17.042 17.176 0.673
2.2. Age Supra canine 87 9.863 9.797 0.498
Infra canine 93 9.947 9.502 <0.001*
Supra M2 71 31.773 30.682 0.009*
The results with regard to the influence of age on FSTT Infra M2 66 26.432 26.050 0.042*
variability are shown in Fig. 3. Twice as many landmarks with Alare 102 11.390 11.598 0.088
significant age influence were detected in females (glabella, Orbitale 102 7.844 7.968 0.420
subspinale, gonion, orbitale, zygion, jugale, inferior malar on the Zygion 102 8.799 8.960 0.702
Jugale 102 10.456 9.969 <0.001*
right side only, mid-ramus on the left side only and mid-
Ectoconchion 102 5.861 5.856 0.680
mandibular border). In males, age had a significant effect on Orbitale superius 102 9.635 9.502 0.090
4 landmarks (supramentale, orbitale, ectoconchion on the left side Inferior malar 101 17.808 18.059 0.042*
only and mid-ramus on the left side only). The FSTT values for Mid-ramus 102 24.621 24.275 0.077
males always increased with age. The FSTT values for females Mid-mandibular border 102 13.188 13.862 0.003*

increased with age especially at landmarks in the midline plane. *

p < 0.05.
106.e6 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7

Table 5 Table 6
Comparison of results with study Panenkova et al. [8]. Comparison of results with study Guyomarc’h et al. [28].

Landmark Present study Panenkova Landmark Present study Guyomarc’h

et al. [8] et al. [28]

Sex N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) P-value N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) P-value

Glabella M 56 6.3 (1.2) 80 5.9 (1.3) 0.071 Glabella 102 6.2 (1.2) 366 6.5 (1.2) 0.026*
F 46 6.0 (1.3) 80 5.5 (1.0) 0.017* Nasion 102 8.9 (1.9) 469 8.2 (1.6) <0.001*
Nasion M 56 9.4 (1.9) 80 8.0 (1.5) <0.001* Rhinion 101 2.9 (0.7) 321 3.0 (1.3) 0.458
F 46 8.3 (1.9) 80 6.9 (1.2) <0.001* Subspinale 101 14.4 (2.3) 459 12.9 (0.9) <0.001*
Rhinion M 56 3.1 (0.6) 80 2.5 (0.7) <0.001* Prosthion/labrale 84 12.4 (2.7) 294 14.1 (2.5) <0.001*
F 46 2.6 (0.6) 80 2.1 (0.6) <0.001* superius
Subspinale M 56 15.7 (1.8) 69 15.2 (2.6) 0.225 Infradentale/labrale 90 15.3 (2.3) 266 16.8 (3.1) <0.001*
F 46 12.8 (1.8) 72 12.4 (2.0) 0.273 inferius
Prosthion/labrale M 47 13.7 (2.7) 21 12.9 (1.9) 0.224 Pogonion 102 12.7 (2.6) 254 11.8 (2.1) <0.001*
superius Gnathion 93 8.6 (2.1) 211 9.5 (3.3) <0.001*
F 43 11.1 (1.9) 12 11.4 (1.9) 0.628 Orbitale 102 7.8 (2.8) 371 8.6 (2.3) 0.003*
Orbitale superius M 56 10.2 (1.7) 80 8.2 (1.6) <0.001* Ectokonchion 102 5.9 (1.7) 372 7.8 (2.6) <0.001*
F 46 8.9 (1.8) 80 7.2 (1.3) <0.001* Zygion 102 8.8 (2.7) 364 10.0 (2.8) <0.001*
Orbitale M 56 8.4 (3.0) 80 7.0 (2.1) 0.002* Jugale 102 10.5 (2.4) 245 10.9 (2.2) 0.134
F 46 7.2 (2.3) 80 6.8 (2.5) 0.375 Gonion 102 17.0 (6.3) 238 18.5 (6.9) 0.060
Ektokonchion M 56 5.8 (1.7) 79 9.0 (2.0) <0.001* Supra canine 82 9.9 (2.1) 307 13.4 (2.6) <0.001*
F 46 5.9 (1.8) 80 10.0 (2.0) <0.001* Infra canine 92 9.9 (1.9) 262 12.8 (2.1) <0.001*
Zygion M 56 8.5 (2.4) 75 9.5 (2.4) 0.019* Mentale 102 13.2 (2.5) 255 12.8 (2.1) 0.125
F 46 9.2 (2.9) 66 9.1 (2.5) 0.846 Mid-ramus 101 24.6 (4.7) 327 22.7 (4.8) <0.001*
Inferior malar M 56 18.1 (3.1) 75 16.4 (2.5) <0.001* Mid-mandibular 101 13.2 (3.8) 242 14.6 (4.3) 0.005*
F 46 17.5 (3.8) 74 15.2 (2.5) <0.001* border
Supra M2 M 39 33.5 (4.9) 60 30.6 (5.2) 0.007* *
p < 0.05.
F 34 29.6 (5.9) 57 28.1 (4.8) 0.189
*
p < 0.05.

significant in all of these sections. The greatest levels of sexual

2.3. Asymmetry
A significant influence of asymmetry was detected in 18% of the
landmarks (see Table 4). The values for supra M2, infra M2, and
infra canine are higher on the right side. The values for inferior
malar and mid-mandibular border are higher on the left side.
3. Discussion and conclusion
Craniofacial reconstruction is one of the methods in forensic
anthropology which models the appearance of the face from the
skeletal remains. A reliable CFR requires knowledge of average
FSTTs in relation to sex, age and population affinity [27]. The
purpose of this study was to define these FSTT values in the adult
Czech population with respect to sexual dimorphism, age and facial
asymmetry. The results were compared with those obtained in
selected European populations [8,28,29] and in North American [5],
South American [7,12,22], Australian [30] and Asian populations
[31,32]. These comparisons revealed a great variability in the FSTT
values, and the thicknesses obtained in this study tend to be greater
than the average values in other works (with the exception of
Guyomarc’h et al. [28]). This result could be the result of our sample
size and of the frequent occurrence of obesity in the Czech
population. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the differences
between populations are so great as to affect the reconstruction of
the face. As noted by Stephan and Simpson [6], the intra-population
variability of FSTTs is larger than the variability between popula-
tions. This result can be caused by different sample sizes and
compositions or by the differing methods of procuring the data (e.g.,
ultrasound [5,35] or contact scanning [2]). Also relevant are the
influence of the body constitution of the studied specimens and the
considerable variability of soft tissues at the studied landmarks [33].
Tables 5 and 6 show comparisons in FSTT with the studies by
Panenkova et al. [8] and Guyomarc’h et al. [28]. The similarities in
results can be explained by the use of the same methods for scanning
subjects and for measurements of FSTT. The differences could be
caused by dissimilar datasets or the number of scanned subjects.
Sexual dimorphism was studied on the whole face and on the
upper and lower parts separately and was found to be statistically
dimorphism were detected in glabella, nose, mandible and maxilla.
Similar results were obtained by Shrimpton et al. [10], who found
the most pronounced dimorphism near glabella, nose and
mandible. Almost all landmarks on the medial plane displayed a
significant influence of sex on FSTT. Codinha [11] came to the same
conclusion with a Portuguese population.
In spite of the significant sexual dimorphism in FSTT, greater
variability is found within the sexes than between them [13]. Males
typically exhibit greater FSTT values than females at almost all
landmarks [2,5,7,8]. In our sample, females had greater soft tissue
thicknesses only at zygion and jugale. The FSTTs at ectoconchion
and mid-mandibular border were similar in both sexes. Despite the
confirmed sexual variability, the differences are often as small as
1 or 2 mm, which has no practical bearing on the reconstructed
facial appearance [9,12].
The influence of age was confirmed in all facial regions, more so
in males than in females. The values of FSTT either rise with age
(e.g., glabella, jugale) or rise until the second age group and then
diminish (e.g., mid-ramus, zygion). In contrast to other studies, we
have detected a significant influence of age on the cheeks and in
the nasal area (Only [8] mentions a significant influence on nasion
in males). Additionally, contrary to other sources [8,29,34], our
study demonstrated a trend in which FSTT near the teeth increases
with age.
The influence of asymmetry was more pronounced in our study
than in others [7,22,30,32,34]. A significant relation between
asymmetry and FSTT was shown by De Greef [35] in 12 of the
24 landmarks studied. Both [35] and our study agree on the
significant influence of asymmetry at inferior malar, supra canine
and infra M2. Additionally, both studies show a greater FSTT on the
right side of the face. Other works [7,22,34], on the other hand,
have found greater soft tissue thickness on the left side.
In this work, we have established standards for the average
values and variability of FSTT at 40 landmarks in the adult Czech
population. Sexual dimorphism of FSTT has been confirmed and
shown to be more pronounced in the lower half of the face. A
significant influence of age has also been shown in the upper face.
The influence of asymmetry has been confirmed in seven bilateral
landmarks, five of which favour the right side of the face.
 A. Drgáčová et al. / Forensic Science International 260 (2016) 106.e1–106.e7
References
[1] O. Bulut, S. Sipahioglu, B. Hekimoglu, Facial soft tissue thickness database for
craniofacial reconstruction in the Turkish adult population, Forensic Sci. Int. 242
(2014) 44–61.
[2] E. Simpson, M. Henneberg, Variation in soft-tissue thicknesses on the human face
and their relation to craniometric dimensions, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 118 (2002)
121–133.
[3] F. Farrar, From skull to visage: a forensic technique for facial reconstruction, Police
Chef 44 (1977) 78–80.
[4] J.M. Starbuck, R.E. Ward, The affect of tissue depth variation on craniofacial
reconstructions, Forensic Sci. Int. 3 (2007) 130–136.
[5] M.H. Manhein, G.A. Listi, R.E. Barsley, R. Musselman, N.E. Barrow, D.H. Ubelaker, In
vivo facial tissue depth measurements for children and adults, J. Forensic Sci. 45
(2000) 48–60.
[6] C.N. Stephan, E.K. Simpson, Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification
(Part I): an analytical review of the published adult data, J. Forensic Sci. 53 (2008)
1257–1272.
[7] S.V. Tedeschi-Oliveira, R.F.H. Melani, N.H. de Almeida, L.A.S. de Paiva, Facial
soft tissue thickness of Brazilian adults, Forensic Sci. Int. 193 (2009), 127.e1–
127.e7.
[8] P. Panenkova, R. Benus, S. Masnicová, Z. Obertová, J. Grunt, Facial soft tissue
thicknesses of the mid-face for Slovak population, Forensic Sci. Int. 220 (2012),
293.e1–293.e6.
[9] S. De Greef, P. Claes, D. Vandermeulen, P. Suetens, G. Willems, The influence of sex,
age and body mass index on facial soft tissue depths, Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 5
(2009) 60–65.
[10] S. Shrimpton, K. Daniels, S. de Greef, F. Tilotta, G. Willems, D. Vandermeulen, P.
Suetens, P. Claes, A spatially-dense regression study of facial form and tissue
depth: towards an interactive tool for craniofacial reconstruction, Forensic Sci.
Int. 234 (2014) 103–110.
[11] S. Codinha, Facial soft tissue thicknesses for the Portugese adult population,
Forensic Sci. Int. 184 (2009), 80.e1–80.e7.
[12] N.H. de Almeida, E. Michel-Crosato, L.A.S. de Paiva, M.G.H. Biazevic, Facial soft
tissue thickness in the Brazilian population: new reference data and anatomical
landmarks, Forensic Sci. Int. 231 (2013), 404.e1–404.e7.
[13] C.N. Stephan, Anthropological facial reconstruction–recognizing the fallacies,
unembracing errors and realizin method limits, Sci. Justice 43 (2005) 193–200.
[14] P.M. O’Hare, A.B. Fleischer, J.R. D’Agostino, S.R. Feldman, M.A. Hinds, S.A. Rassette,
Tobacco smoking contributes little to facial wrinkling, J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol.
Venereol. 12 (1999) 133–139.
[15] M.A. Taister, S.D. Holliday, H.I.M. Borrman, Comments on facial aging in law
enforcement investigation, For. Sci. Com. 2 (2000) (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/
lab/forensic-science-communications/sc/april2000/index.htm/taister.htm).
[16] B. Guyuron, D.J. Rowe, A.B. Weinfeld, Y. Eshraghi, A. Fathi, S. Iamphongsai, Factors
contributing to the facial aging of identical twins, Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 123 (2009)
1321–1331.
[17] H.C. Okada, K. Varghai, B. Alleyne, K. Kinder, B. Guyuron, Facial changes caused by
smoking: a comparison between smoking and nonsmoking identical twins, Plast.
Reconstr. Surg. 132 (2013) 1085–1092.
106.e7
[18] R. Ichibori, T. Fujiwara, T. Tanigawa, S. Kanazawa, K. Shingaki, K. Torii, K. Tomita, K.
Yano, Osaka Twin Research Group, Y. Sakai, K. Hosokawa, Objective assessment of
facial skin aging and the associated environmental factors in Japanese monozy-
gotic twins, J. Cosmetic Dermatol. 13 (2014) 158–163.
[19] A.M. Albert, K. Ricanek, E. Patterson, A review of the literature on the aging adult
skull and face: implications for forensic science research and applications,
Forensic Sci. Int. 172 (2007) 1–9.
[20] M. Mydlová, J. Dupej, J. Koudelová, J. Velemı́nská, Sexual dimorphism of facial
appearance in aging human adults: a cross-sectional study, Forensic Sci. Int. (in
print) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.09.008.
[21] C. Wilkinson, Forensic Facial Reconstruction, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2004.
[22] N.E.P. Ruiz, Facial soft tissue thickness of Colombian adults, Forensic Sci. Int. 229
(2013), 160.e1–160.e9.
[23] S. De Greef, P. Claes, D. Vandermeulen, W. Mollemans, P. Suetens, G. Willems,
Large-scale in-vivo Caucasian facial soft tissue thickness database for craniofacial
reconstruction, Forensic Sci. Int. 1598 (2006) 126–146.
[24] S. Bejdova, V. Krajicek, J. Veleminska, M. Horak, P. Veleminsky, Changes in the
sexual dimorphism of the human mandible during the last 1200 years in Central
Europe, Homo 64 (2013) 437–453.
[25] A. Vanezis, M. Vanezis, G. McCombe, T. Niblett, Facial reconstruction using 3-D
computer graphics, Forensic Sci. Int. 108 (2000) 87–95.
[26] N. Von Cranon-Taubadel, B.C. Frazick, M.M. Lahr, The problem of assessing
landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods and modifica-
tionsm, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 134 (2007) 23–35.
[27] M.M. Pithon, D.L.R. Ribeiro, R.L. dos Santos, C.L. de Santana, J.P.P. Cruz, Soft tissue
thickness in zoung north eastern Brazilian individuals with different skeletal
classes, J. Forensic Leg. Med. 22 (2014) 115–120.
[28] P. Guyomarc’h, F. Santos, B. Dutailly, H. Coqueugniot, Facial soft tissue depths in
French adults: variability, specificity and estimation, Forensic Sci. Int. 231 (2013),
411.e1–411.e10.
[29] S. Sipahioglu, H. Ulubay, H. Baris Diren, Midline facial soft tissue thickness
database of Turkish population: MRI study, Forensic Sci. Int. 219 (2012),
282.e1–282.e8.
[30] M. Domaracki, C.N. Stephan, Facial soft tissue thicknesses in Australian adult
cadavers, J. Forensic Sci. 51 (2006) 5–10.
[31] Y. Dong, L. Huang, Z. Feng, S. Bai, G. Wu, Y. Zhao, Influence of sex and body mass
index on facial soft tissue thickness measurements of the northern Chinese adult
population, Forensic Sci. Int. 222 (2012), 396.e1–396.e7.
[32] H.S. Hwang, K. Kim, D.N. Moon, J.H. Kim, C. Wilkinson, Reproducibility of facial
soft tissue thicknesses for craniofacial reconstruction using cone-beam CT
images, J. Forensic Sci. 57 (2012) 443–448.
[33] F. Tilotta, F. Richard, J. Glaunés, M. Berar, S. Gey, S. Verdeille, Y. Rozenholc, J.F.
Gaudy, Construction and analysis of a head CT-scan database for craniofacial
reconstruction, Forensic Sci. Int. 191 (2009), 112.e1–112.e12..
[34] D. Sahni, K. Sanjeev, G. Singh, I. Jit, P. Singh, Facial soft tissue thickness in
northwest Indian adults, Forensic Sci. Int. 176 (2008) 137–146.
[35] S. De Greef, P. Claes, D. Vandermeulen, W. Mollemans, P. Suetens, G. Willems,
Large-scale in-vivo Caucasian facial soft tissue thickness database for craniofacial
reconstruction, Forensic Sci. Int. 159 (2006) 126–146.