BACKGROUND: Handheld 3-dimensional surface imaging (3DSI) devices of various precision are becoming more versatile in their applications and more widely accepted by clinicians for documentation. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the precision of facial volumetric change measurements of 3 3DSI devices in the cadaveric model: Eva (Artec 3D Inc., Luxembourg), Sense (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC), and iSense (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC). METHODS: A total of 336 scanning and analysis procedures were carried out in 4 cephalic specimens (mean age, 77.25 ± 24.3 years; mean BMI, 21.76 ± 6.6 kg/m2). Two superficial and 2 supraperiosteal regions of interest were injected with 0.5-cc aliquots and subsequently scanned using the 3 different scanners. Correlation coefficients between the injected and measured volume were computed. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient for the Eva scanner was for subcutaneous regions of interest rp = 0.935 and for the supraperiosteal regions of interest rp = 0.966, compared with rp = 0.760 and rp = 0.364 (superficial vs supraperiosteal) for the Sense and rp = 0.694 and rp = 0.382 (superficial vs supraperiosteal) for the iSense scanner. CONCLUSIONS: 3DSI devices are capable of measuring surface volume changes of the face at a level of 0.5-cc surface volume change and can thus be regarded as useful tools in the preinterventional, intrainterventional, and postinterventional phases of a treatment. One of the 3 evaluated scanners provided very high correlation coefficients between the injected and the measured volume (Eva), whereas the other evaluated 3DSI devices provided moderate (Sense) and low (iSense) coefficients.
BACKGROUND: Handheld 3-dimensional surface imaging (3DSI) devices of various precision are becoming more versatile in their applications and more widely accepted by clinicians for documentation. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the precision of facial volumetric change measurements of 3 3DSI devices in the cadaveric model: Eva (Artec 3D Inc., Luxembourg), Sense (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC), and iSense (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC). METHODS: A total of 336 scanning and analysis procedures were carried out in 4 cephalic specimens (mean age, 77.25 ± 24.3 years; mean BMI, 21.76 ± 6.6 kg/m2). Two superficial and 2 supraperiosteal regions of interest were injected with 0.5-cc aliquots and subsequently scanned using the 3 different scanners. Correlation coefficients between the injected and measured volume were computed. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient for the Eva scanner was for subcutaneous regions of interest rp = 0.935 and for the supraperiosteal regions of interest rp = 0.966, compared with rp = 0.760 and rp = 0.364 (superficial vs supraperiosteal) for the Sense and rp = 0.694 and rp = 0.382 (superficial vs supraperiosteal) for the iSense scanner. CONCLUSIONS: 3DSI devices are capable of measuring surface volume changes of the face at a level of 0.5-cc surface volume change and can thus be regarded as useful tools in the preinterventional, intrainterventional, and postinterventional phases of a treatment. One of the 3 evaluated scanners provided very high correlation coefficients between the injected and the measured volume (Eva), whereas the other evaluated 3DSI devices provided moderate (Sense) and low (iSense) coefficients.
Authors: Zhouxiao Li; Thilo Ludwig Schenck; Riccardo Enzo Giunta; Lucas Etzel; Konstantin Christoph Koban Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Zhouxiao Li; Yimin Liang; Thilo Ludwig Schenck; Konstantin Frank; Riccardo Enzo Giunta; Konstantin Christoph Koban Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-06
Authors: Marc Mespreuve; Karl Waked; Barbara Collard; Joris De Ranter; Francis Vanneste; Benoit Hendrickx Journal: Aesthet Surg J Open Forum Date: 2021-05-11