| Literature DB >> 22584773 |
Maximilian Eder1, Gernot Brockmann, Alexander Zimmermann, Moschos A Papadopoulos, Katja Schwenzer-Zimmerer, Hans Florian Zeilhofer, Robert Sader, Nikolaos A Papadopulos, Laszlo Kovacs.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3-D) surface imaging has gained clinical acceptance, especially in the field of cranio-maxillo-facial and plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. Six scanners based on different scanning principles (Minolta Vivid 910®, Polhemus FastSCAN™, GFM PRIMOS®, GFM TopoCAM®, Steinbichler Comet® Vario Zoom 250, 3dMD DSP 400®) were used to measure five sheep skulls of different sizes. In three areas with varying anatomical complexity (areas, 1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low), 56 distances between 20 landmarks are defined on each skull. Manual measurement (MM), coordinate machine measurements (CMM) and computer tomography (CT) measurements were used to define a reference method for further precision and accuracy evaluation of different 3-D scanning systems. MM showed high correlation to CMM and CT measurements (both r = 0.987; p < 0.001) and served as the reference method. TopoCAM®, Comet® and Vivid 910® showed highest measurement precision over all areas of complexity; Vivid 910®, the Comet® and the DSP 400® demonstrated highest accuracy over all areas with Vivid 910® being most accurate in areas 1 and 3, and the DSP 400® most accurate in area 2. In accordance to the measured distance length, most 3-D devices present higher measurement precision and accuracy for large distances and lower degrees of precision and accuracy for short distances. In general, higher degrees of complexity are associated with lower 3-D assessment accuracy, suggesting that for optimal results, different types of scanners should be applied to specific clinical applications and medical problems according to their special construction designs and characteristics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 22584773 PMCID: PMC3597967 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9487-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Digit Imaging ISSN: 0897-1889 Impact factor: 4.056