The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-05-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0322358
Nichakun Tangthaweesuk, Somchart Raocharernporn
{"title":"The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners.","authors":"Nichakun Tangthaweesuk, Somchart Raocharernporn","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0322358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) and reproducibility of three 3D facial scanning systems: a laser scanner (Planmeca Proface), a dual-structured light scanner (EinScan H2), and a smartphone application (EM3D Scanner). Thirty subjects with skeletal deformities scheduled for orthognathic surgery were scanned using these systems, and the resulting 90 3D facial scans were compared with facial surfaces segmented from CBCT scans. Surface discrepancies were measured using root mean square (RMS) values across five facial aesthetic areas (cheeks, nasal, perioral, and mental units) through Geomagic Control X software. The EM3D Scanner showed significantly better trueness and precision compared to the EinScan H2, particularly for the overall face (p < 0.01). Planmeca Proface showed no significant difference from the other scanners in terms of error. The nasal and perioral regions, scanned with Planmeca Proface, achieved the highest accuracy compared to other areas, while the left cheek demonstrated the lowest accuracy. Up to 80% of the scanned areas were classified as reproducible, falling within acceptable tolerance limits. Overall, trueness values ranged from 0.70 to 0.85 mm, and precision ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 mm, with deviations of less than 1.0 mm deemed highly acceptable for clinical applications. Surface regions closer to the midline were found to have higher accuracy than those on the sides of the face. These findings highlight the potential of EM3D Scanner and Planmeca Proface for accurate and reliable facial scanning, particularly in clinical settings where minimal deviation is crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 5","pages":"e0322358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101780/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322358","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) and reproducibility of three 3D facial scanning systems: a laser scanner (Planmeca Proface), a dual-structured light scanner (EinScan H2), and a smartphone application (EM3D Scanner). Thirty subjects with skeletal deformities scheduled for orthognathic surgery were scanned using these systems, and the resulting 90 3D facial scans were compared with facial surfaces segmented from CBCT scans. Surface discrepancies were measured using root mean square (RMS) values across five facial aesthetic areas (cheeks, nasal, perioral, and mental units) through Geomagic Control X software. The EM3D Scanner showed significantly better trueness and precision compared to the EinScan H2, particularly for the overall face (p < 0.01). Planmeca Proface showed no significant difference from the other scanners in terms of error. The nasal and perioral regions, scanned with Planmeca Proface, achieved the highest accuracy compared to other areas, while the left cheek demonstrated the lowest accuracy. Up to 80% of the scanned areas were classified as reproducible, falling within acceptable tolerance limits. Overall, trueness values ranged from 0.70 to 0.85 mm, and precision ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 mm, with deviations of less than 1.0 mm deemed highly acceptable for clinical applications. Surface regions closer to the midline were found to have higher accuracy than those on the sides of the face. These findings highlight the potential of EM3D Scanner and Planmeca Proface for accurate and reliable facial scanning, particularly in clinical settings where minimal deviation is crucial.

通过三种不同的三维扫描仪获得三维面部扫描的精度。
本研究旨在比较三种3D面部扫描系统的准确性(真实性和精密度)和再现性:激光扫描仪(Planmeca Proface),双结构光扫描仪(EinScan H2)和智能手机应用程序(EM3D扫描仪)。使用这些系统对30名计划进行正颌手术的骨骼畸形患者进行扫描,并将所得到的90张3D面部扫描与CBCT扫描分割的面部表面进行比较。通过Geomagic Control X软件,使用五个面部美学区域(脸颊、鼻腔、口周和精神单元)的均方根(RMS)值测量表面差异。与EinScan H2相比,EM3D扫描仪显示出明显更好的准确性和准确性,特别是对于整个面部(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信