Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Apr;70(4):441-449. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015. Epub 2017 Jan 7.

Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging.

Author information

1
UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom; Craniofacial Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: paul.knoops.14@ucl.ac.uk.
2
UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom; Craniofacial Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
3
UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom; Craniofacial Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Two-dimensional photographs are the standard for assessing craniofacial surgery clinical outcomes despite lacking three-dimensional (3D) depth and shape. Therefore, 3D scanners have been gaining popularity in various fields of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including craniomaxillofacial surgery. Head shapes of eight adult volunteers were acquired using four 3D scanners: 1.5T Avanto MRI, Siemens; 3dMDface System, 3dMD Inc.; M4D Scan, Rodin4D; and Structure Sensor, Occipital Inc. Accuracy was evaluated as percentage of data within a range of 2 mm from the 3DMDface System reconstruction, by surface-to-surface root mean square (RMS) distances, and with facial distance maps. Precision was determined by RMS. Relative to the 3dMDface System, accuracy was the highest for M4D Scan (90% within 2 mm; RMS of 0.71 mm ± 0.28 mm), followed by Avanto MRI (86%; 1.11 mm ± 0.33 mm) and Structure Sensor (80%; 1.33 mm ± 0.46). M4D Scan and Structure Sensor precision were 0.50 ± 0.04 mm and 0.51 ± 0.03 mm, respectively. Clinical and technical requirements govern scanner choice; however, 3dMDface System and M4D Scan provide high-quality results. It is foreseeable that compact, handheld systems will become more popular in the near future.

KEYWORDS:

3D photography; 3D surface scanning; Craniofacial surgery; Maxillofacial surgery; Plastic surgery

PMID:
28161205
DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center