## 3 Results
### Correlations between Variable  
The correlation between variables was calculated with Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) for each 150 pairs, and the results are synthetized in Table 3. For the statistically significant correlations (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.01), the coefficients of correlation were between 0.005 and 0.967 (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Mean (\(\pm\)SD)** \\ \hline Sn–PM in OVD (mm) & 29 & 63 & 50.20 (\(\pm\)9.06) \\ Sn–PM in RVD (mm) & 31 & 67 & 52.33 (\(\pm\)10.39) \\ Sn–Gn in OVD (mm) & 44 & 73 & 62.47 (\(\pm\)6.77) \\ OVD & & & \\ Sn–Gn in RVD (mm) & 48 & 76 & 66.07 (\(\pm\)6,84) \\ RVD & & & \\ Pu–Ch\_r (mm) & 63 & 78 & 70.07 (\(\pm\)3.92) \\ Pu–Ch\_l (mm) & 66 & 76 & 71.40 (\(\pm\)3.02) \\ LFH\({}^{\sim}\) & 34.66\({}^{\circ}\) & 51.04\({}^{\circ}\) & 42.31\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)4.29) \\ ML’FH & 11.33\({}^{\circ}\) & 34.36\({}^{\circ}\) & 22.15\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)6.35) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD = standard deviation; Sn–PM = distance subnusion–premento; Sn–Gn = distance subnasion–gnathion; OVD = occlusal vertical dimension; RVD = rest vertical dimension; Pu–Ch\_r = pupil to chelion right side; Pu–Ch\_l = pupil to chelion left side; LFH’ = angle between anterior nasal spine [ANS], Xi (geometrical center of the mandibular ramus) and premento [PM]; ML’FH = angle between mandibular plane and Frankfurt plane.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive data of the variables calculated from the clinical cephalometric analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Facial Profile** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of Subjects (N)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean LFH\({}^{\sim}\)** \\ **(\(\pm\)SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Reference (\(\pm\)Accepted** \\ **Variation)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Difference** \\ \end{tabular} & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline Brachyfacial & 48 & 39.06\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)4.29\({}^{\circ}\)) & 44\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)2.5\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)4.94 & 0.758 \\ Mesofacial & 60 & 42.91\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)2.16\({}^{\circ}\)) & 49\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)2.5\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)6.09 & 0.990 \\ Dolichofacial & 42 & 45.48\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)4.70\({}^{\circ}\)) & 54\({}^{\circ}\) (\(\pm\)2.5\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)8.52 & 0.692 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD = standard deviation, LFH’ = angle between anterior nasal spine [ANS]. Xi (geometrical center of the mandibular ramus) and premento [PM], \(p\) value = statistical significance between different pattern of grow and mean LFH’.  
[PERSON]’s correlation coefficient was used for statistical significance, \(p<\) 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Correlation between LFH’ and OVD for different pattern of growth of the enrolled participants, classified according to ML’FH [43]. A facial scanner is a non-contact optical measuring instrument, with a large application in clinical practice for diagnosis and treatment plan and evaluation [39; 44; 45], and also with acceptable accuracy [46; 47]. The use of smartphone software for face capture in dentistry is not unusual either. [PERSON] et al. used Bellus application for iPhone (Bellus3D FaceApp; Bellus3D Inc) as a diagnostic and treatment tool in addition to intraoral scans, period scans of the nose and mouth, incorporating the data into a digital patient for optimizing individual tooth arrangement during the design of a digital denture [40]. For personalized dental care, information on the patient's face and period environment is extremely useful for the communication between clinicians and a dental laboratory and also between different dental specialties; therefore, the concept of \"digital patient\" is more and more applied [48]. Various scanning technologies, such as laser triangulation, structured light, photogrammetry, contact based, and laser pulse, are used for 3D image acquisition, the contact-based technology being the most accurate for surface scanning [49].