A study to evaluate the reliability of using two-dimensional photographs, three-dimensional images, and stereoscopic projected three-dimensional images for patient assessment.

Clinicians are accustomed to viewing conventional two-dimensional (2D) photographs and assume that viewing three-dimensional (3D) images is similar. Facial images captured in 3D are not viewed in true 3D; this may alter clinical judgement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of using conventional photographs, 3D images, and stereoscopic projected 3D images to rate the severity of the deformity in pre-surgical class III patients. Forty adult patients were recruited. Eight raters assessed facial height, symmetry, and profile using the three different viewing media and a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), and appraised the most informative viewing medium. Inter-rater consistency was above good for all three media. Intra-rater reliability was not significantly different for rating facial height using 2D (P=0.704), symmetry using 3D (P=0.056), and profile using projected 3D (P=0.749). Using projected 3D for rating profile and symmetry resulted in significantly lower median VAS scores than either 3D or 2D images (all P<0.05). For 75% of the raters, stereoscopic 3D projection was the preferred method for rating. The reliability of assessing specific characteristics was dependent on the viewing medium. Clinicians should be aware that the visual information provided when viewing 3D images is not the same as when viewing 2D photographs, especially for facial depth, and this may change the clinical impression. Crown