Arico Verhulst1,2, Marinka Hol3, Rinaldo Vreeken4,5, Alfred Becking6, Dietmar Ulrich7, Thomas Maal8. 1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2. Radboudumc 3D Lab, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Head and Neck Surgery/Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre. 4. 3D specialist, Radboudumc 3D Lab Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. 6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre. 8. Radboudumc 3D Lab, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging of the face is being used extensively in medicine for clinical decision making, surgical planning, and research. Nowadays, several companies are offering a broad range of 3D imaging systems, varying in price, method, and mobility. However, most planning and evaluation methods are created and validated solely with one imaging system. Therefore, it is important to analyze possible differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between different systems. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between three systems: 3dMDface system, Vectra XT, and Artec Eva. METHODS: Three-dimensional images of the face were acquired from 15 healthy patients with each imaging system. Reproducibility of each device was calculated and a comparison of the Vectra XT and Artec Eva with the 3dMDface was made. RESULTS: All 3D imaging devices showed high reproducibility, with a mean difference of 0.18 ± 0.15 mm (3dMDface system), 0.15 ± 0.15 mm (Vectra XT), and 0.26 ± 0.24 mm (Artec Eva). No significant difference in reproducibility was found between the Vectra XT and 3dMDface, while a significant difference was found between 3dMDface and Artec Eva, and between Vectra XT and Artec Eva. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Vectra XT was 0.32 ± 0.26 mm. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Artec Eva was 0.44 ± 1.09 mm. CONCLUSIONS: All three imaging devices showed high reproducibility and accuracy. Although the Artec Eva showed a significant lower reproducibility, the difference found was not clinically relevant. Therefore, using these different systems alongside each other in clinical and research settings is possible.
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging of the face is being used extensively in medicine for clinical decision making, surgical planning, and research. Nowadays, several companies are offering a broad range of 3D imaging systems, varying in price, method, and mobility. However, most planning and evaluation methods are created and validated solely with one imaging system. Therefore, it is important to analyze possible differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between different systems. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between three systems: 3dMDface system, Vectra XT, and Artec Eva. METHODS: Three-dimensional images of the face were acquired from 15 healthy patients with each imaging system. Reproducibility of each device was calculated and a comparison of the Vectra XT and Artec Eva with the 3dMDface was made. RESULTS: All 3D imaging devices showed high reproducibility, with a mean difference of 0.18 ± 0.15 mm (3dMDface system), 0.15 ± 0.15 mm (Vectra XT), and 0.26 ± 0.24 mm (Artec Eva). No significant difference in reproducibility was found between the Vectra XT and 3dMDface, while a significant difference was found between 3dMDface and Artec Eva, and between Vectra XT and Artec Eva. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Vectra XT was 0.32 ± 0.26 mm. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Artec Eva was 0.44 ± 1.09 mm. CONCLUSIONS: All three imaging devices showed high reproducibility and accuracy. Although the Artec Eva showed a significant lower reproducibility, the difference found was not clinically relevant. Therefore, using these different systems alongside each other in clinical and research settings is possible.
Authors: Yongwei Guo; Ludwig M Heindl; Wanlin Fan; Alexander C Rokohl; Patrick Kupka; Xiaoyi Hou; Jinhua Liu; Senmao Li; Adam Kopecky; Sitong Ju; Philomena A Wawer Matos Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2022-10-16
Authors: Rafael Denadai; Junior Chun-Yu Tu; Ya-Ru Tsai; Yi-Ning Tsai; Emma Yuh-Jia Hsieh; Betty Cj Pai; Chih-Hao Chen; Alex Kane; Lun-Jou Lo; Pang-Yun Chou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Robin Hartmann; Maximilian Weiherer; Daniel Schiltz; Stephan Seitz; Luisa Lotter; Alexandra Anker; Christoph Palm; Lukas Prantl; Vanessa Brébant Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Maria H J Hollander; Joep Kraeima; Anne M L Meesters; Konstantina Delli; Arjan Vissink; Johan Jansma; Rutger H Schepers Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Zhouxiao Li; Yimin Liang; Thilo Ludwig Schenck; Konstantin Frank; Riccardo Enzo Giunta; Konstantin Christoph Koban Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-06