BACKGROUND: In modern anthropometry of such complex structures as the face, three-dimensional scanning techniques have become more and more common. Before establishing them as a criterion standard, however, meticulous evaluation of their precision and accuracy under both ideal and clinical circumstances is essential. Potential sources of error need to be identified and addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under ideal circumstances, a phantom is used to examine the precision and accuracy of the 3dMD system. A clinical setting is simulated by varying different parameters such as angle, distance, and system reregistration, as well as data evaluation under different levels of magnification. RESULTS: The handling of the system was unproblematic in matters of data acquisition and data analysis. It was very reliable, with a mean global error of 0.2 mm (range, 0.1-0.5 mm) for mannequin head measurements. Neither the position of the head nor that of the camera influenced these parameters. New referencing of the system did not influence precision and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The precision and accuracy of the tested system are more than sufficient for clinical needs and greater than those of other methods, such as direct anthropometry and two-dimensional photography. The evaluated system can be recommended for evaluation and documentation of the facial surface and could offer new opportunities in reconstructive, orthognathic, and craniofacial surgery.
BACKGROUND: In modern anthropometry of such complex structures as the face, three-dimensional scanning techniques have become more and more common. Before establishing them as a criterion standard, however, meticulous evaluation of their precision and accuracy under both ideal and clinical circumstances is essential. Potential sources of error need to be identified and addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under ideal circumstances, a phantom is used to examine the precision and accuracy of the 3dMD system. A clinical setting is simulated by varying different parameters such as angle, distance, and system reregistration, as well as data evaluation under different levels of magnification. RESULTS: The handling of the system was unproblematic in matters of data acquisition and data analysis. It was very reliable, with a mean global error of 0.2 mm (range, 0.1-0.5 mm) for mannequin head measurements. Neither the position of the head nor that of the camera influenced these parameters. New referencing of the system did not influence precision and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The precision and accuracy of the tested system are more than sufficient for clinical needs and greater than those of other methods, such as direct anthropometry and two-dimensional photography. The evaluated system can be recommended for evaluation and documentation of the facial surface and could offer new opportunities in reconstructive, orthognathic, and craniofacial surgery.
Authors: Lindsey Eidson; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Leonardo Koerich de Paula; H Garland Hershey; Gregory Welch; P Emile Rossouw Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Philipp Metzler; Yi Sun; Wolfgang Zemann; Alexander Bartella; Marc Lehner; Joachim Anton Obwegeser; Astrid L Kruse-Gujer; Heinz-Theo Lübbers Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2013-04-05
Authors: Steven F Miller; Seth M Weinberg; Nichole L Nidey; David K Defay; Mary L Marazita; George L Wehby; Lina M Moreno Uribe Journal: J Anat Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.610