{"title":"三种不同三维面部扫描系统准确性的比较评估:一项观察性交叉研究。","authors":"Lakshay Kumar, Subhabrata Maiti","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_51_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Facial imaging technology has become a pivotal tool in modern medical practice, particularly within fields such as maxillofacial prosthodontics, orthodontics, and smile design. The creation of digital twins, or virtual patients, enhances diagnostic accuracy, aids in treatment planning, and improves outcome prediction. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of various facial scanners, determine overall accuracy of each scanner, and identify which scanner demonstrates superior accuracy in specific facial regions.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>An observational crossover study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Cone beam computed tomography volumetric scan was used as a control group, as it has been considered as a gold standard in terms of accuracy. For comparison, scan data were obtained from three different scanners, namely Carestream facial scanner, Medit intraoral scanner for facial scan, and MetiSmile face scanner. The standard tessellation language files thus obtained were compared for accuracy in Geomagic X software by superimposition technique and were evaluated for their accuracy using various reference points on the face.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance for comparison among groups and Tukey test for pairwise comparison was used using SPSS software (IBM SPSS version 29 USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study concluded that MetiSmile was the best facial scanner among the three groups with a mean discrepancy of (0.35 ± 0.33) mm and P = 0.001, indicating significant difference between the scanners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each scanner evaluated demonstrated acceptable performance, with notable variations attributable to their distinct scanning methodologies. Among these, the MetiSmile scanner emerged as the most accurate, delivering the most favorable results in terms of accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"25 3","pages":"220-228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of three different three-dimensional facial scanning systems: An observational crossover study.\",\"authors\":\"Lakshay Kumar, Subhabrata Maiti\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jips.jips_51_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Facial imaging technology has become a pivotal tool in modern medical practice, particularly within fields such as maxillofacial prosthodontics, orthodontics, and smile design. The creation of digital twins, or virtual patients, enhances diagnostic accuracy, aids in treatment planning, and improves outcome prediction. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of various facial scanners, determine overall accuracy of each scanner, and identify which scanner demonstrates superior accuracy in specific facial regions.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>An observational crossover study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Cone beam computed tomography volumetric scan was used as a control group, as it has been considered as a gold standard in terms of accuracy. For comparison, scan data were obtained from three different scanners, namely Carestream facial scanner, Medit intraoral scanner for facial scan, and MetiSmile face scanner. The standard tessellation language files thus obtained were compared for accuracy in Geomagic X software by superimposition technique and were evaluated for their accuracy using various reference points on the face.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance for comparison among groups and Tukey test for pairwise comparison was used using SPSS software (IBM SPSS version 29 USA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study concluded that MetiSmile was the best facial scanner among the three groups with a mean discrepancy of (0.35 ± 0.33) mm and P = 0.001, indicating significant difference between the scanners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each scanner evaluated demonstrated acceptable performance, with notable variations attributable to their distinct scanning methodologies. Among these, the MetiSmile scanner emerged as the most accurate, delivering the most favorable results in terms of accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"volume\":\"25 3\",\"pages\":\"220-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370101/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_51_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_51_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:面部成像技术已经成为现代医学实践的关键工具,特别是在颌面修复学、正畸学和微笑设计等领域。数字双胞胎或虚拟患者的创建提高了诊断的准确性,有助于制定治疗计划,并改善了结果预测。本研究的目的是评估各种面部扫描仪的准确性,确定每个扫描仪的总体准确性,并确定哪种扫描仪在特定面部区域表现出更高的准确性。背景和设计:一项观察性交叉研究。材料和方法:锥形束计算机断层扫描体积扫描作为对照组,因为它被认为是准确性的金标准。为了进行比较,我们使用了三种不同的扫描仪,分别是Carestream面部扫描仪、Medit口腔内面部扫描仪和MetiSmile面部扫描仪。在Geomagic X软件中,通过叠加技术比较得到的标准镶嵌语言文件的精度,并使用不同的面部参考点对其精度进行评估。采用统计学分析:使用Shapiro-Wilk检验证实正态性。采用SPSS软件(IBM SPSS version 29 USA)进行组间比较的单因素方差分析和两两比较的Tukey检验。结果:MetiSmile是三组中最佳的面部扫描仪,平均差异为(0.35±0.33)mm, P = 0.001,差异有统计学意义。结论:每个扫描仪评估显示可接受的性能,有显著的变化可归因于他们不同的扫描方法。其中,MetiSmile扫描仪是最准确的,在准确性方面提供了最有利的结果。
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of three different three-dimensional facial scanning systems: An observational crossover study.
Aim: Facial imaging technology has become a pivotal tool in modern medical practice, particularly within fields such as maxillofacial prosthodontics, orthodontics, and smile design. The creation of digital twins, or virtual patients, enhances diagnostic accuracy, aids in treatment planning, and improves outcome prediction. The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of various facial scanners, determine overall accuracy of each scanner, and identify which scanner demonstrates superior accuracy in specific facial regions.
Settings and design: An observational crossover study.
Materials and methods: Cone beam computed tomography volumetric scan was used as a control group, as it has been considered as a gold standard in terms of accuracy. For comparison, scan data were obtained from three different scanners, namely Carestream facial scanner, Medit intraoral scanner for facial scan, and MetiSmile face scanner. The standard tessellation language files thus obtained were compared for accuracy in Geomagic X software by superimposition technique and were evaluated for their accuracy using various reference points on the face.
Statistical analysis used: Normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance for comparison among groups and Tukey test for pairwise comparison was used using SPSS software (IBM SPSS version 29 USA).
Results: The study concluded that MetiSmile was the best facial scanner among the three groups with a mean discrepancy of (0.35 ± 0.33) mm and P = 0.001, indicating significant difference between the scanners.
Conclusion: Each scanner evaluated demonstrated acceptable performance, with notable variations attributable to their distinct scanning methodologies. Among these, the MetiSmile scanner emerged as the most accurate, delivering the most favorable results in terms of accuracy.