- Visibility 113 Views
- Downloads 84 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI doi: 10.18231/j.jco.7564.1758973324
-
CrossMark
3D morphometric comparison between two different facial scanning systems: An in vivo study
- Author Details:
-
Havisha Nookala *
-
Aravind S Kumar
-
Ramasamy Navaneethan
Havisha Nookala *
Background: Soft tissue analysis is the crux in surgical treatment planning. With notable advancements in Artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented reality and a paradigm shift to digital dentistry, it is of paramount importance to check the reproducibility of different scanners for a best-fit alignment. This study aims to compare and assess the reliability of two facial scanning systems.
Aim: To compare morphometric 3D measurements obtained from facial scans by Kodak CareStream CS 9600 and Bellus 3D face scan.
Materials and Methods: Facial scans were obtained from 20 Indian subjects aged 18-35 years via CareStream CS facial scanner and Bellus 3D facial scanning app. Nine linear facial morphometric parameters were measured, compared, and analyzed using MeshLab software developed by ISTI (Italian National Research Council) in Rome, Italy. These measurements were subsequently superimposed using the same MeshLab software. The statistical analysis of the data was performed using IBM SPSS software. Independent paired t-tests were employed to investigate inter-group comparisons, Intra-Class Coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate measurement reproducibility, and Kappa statistics were utilized to assess intra-observer reliability.
Results: There was no significant difference in any of the linear 3D morphometric measurements between the groups, suggesting that both Bellus 3D and CareStream facial scans showed good and comparable scanning accuracy (p value > 0.05). The ICC score between the readings were all above 0.80, corresponding to excellent reproducibility of the measurements. A kappa statistic of 0.78, used to assess intra-observer reliability, indicated a strong level of agreement between the readings.
Conclusion: The conclusion drawn from the results of this study was that the accuracy of 3D images obtained from Carestream and Bellus3D exhibited strong and similar scanning repeatability.
References
- Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod. 2004;31(1):62–70. DOI: 10.1179/146531204225011346
[Google Scholar] - Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Bock M, Siebert JP. Three- dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2002;17(4):318–30. DOI: 10.1179/146531204225011346
[Google Scholar] - Berssenbrügge P, Berlin NF, Kebeck G, Runte C, Jung S, Kleinheinz J. et al. 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Sep;42(6):e327–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.028
[Google Scholar] - Toma AM, Zhurov A, Playle R, Ong E, Richmond S. Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on 3D laser-scanned facial images. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009;12(1):33–42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.01435.x
[Google Scholar] - Coward TJ, Watson RM, Scott BJ. Laser scanning for the identification of repeatable landmarks of the ears and face. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50(5):308–14. DOI: 10.1016/s0007-
[Google Scholar] 1226(97)90538-5 - Lee JG, Jung SJ, Lee HJ, Seo JH, Choi YJ, Bae HS. et al. Quantitative anatomical analysis of facial expression using a 3D motion capture system: Application to cosmetic surgery and facial recognition technology. Clin Anat. 2015;28(6):735–44. DOI: 10.1002/ca.22542
[Google Scholar] - Huang YH, Seelaus R, Zhao L, Patel PK, Cohen M. Virtual surgical planning and 3D printing in prosthetic orbital reconstruction with percutaneous implants: a technical case report. Int Med Case Rep J. 2016;9:341–5. DOI: 10.2147/IMCRJ.S118139
[Google Scholar] - Eidson L, Cevidanes LHS, de Paula LK, Hershey HG, Welch G, Rossouw PE. Three-dimensional evaluation of changes in lip position from before to after orthodontic appliance removal. Am J 473 Nookala et al. / Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics 2025;9(4):468–473 Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2012;142(3):410–
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.01.018
[Google Scholar] - Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod. 1998;68(6):557–62. DOI: 10.1043/0003-
[Google Scholar] 3219(1998)068<0557:RBFTAT>2.3.CO;2 - Bianchi SD, Spada MC, Bianchi L, Verze L, Vezzetti E, Tornincasa S. et al. Evaluation of scanning parameters for a surface colour laser scanner. Int Congr Ser. 2004; 1268:1162–7. DOI:10.1016/j.ics.2004.03.264
[Google Scholar] - Tomášik J, Zsoldos M, Oravcová Ľ, Lifková M, Pavleová G, Strunga M, et al. AI and Face-Driven Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Digital Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. AI. 2024;5(1):158–76. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai5010009
[Google Scholar] - Ezhov M, Gusarev M, Golitsyna M, Yates JM, Kushnerev E, Tamimi D. et al. Clinically applicable artificial intelligence system for dental diagnosis with CBCT. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15006. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94093-9
[Google Scholar] - Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52(4):707–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005
[Google Scholar] - Jain S, Choudhary K, Nagi R, Shukla S, Kaur N, Grover D. New evolution of cone-beam computed tomography in dentistry: Combining digital technologies. Imag Sci Dent. 2019;49(3):179–90. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2019.49.3.179
[Google Scholar] - Shujaat S, Bornstein MM, Price JB, Jacobs R. Integration of imaging modalities in digital dental workflows - possibilities, limitations, and potential future developments. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021;50(7):20210268. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210268
[Google Scholar] - Thurzo A, Kurilová V, Varga I. Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontic Smart Application for Treatment Coaching and Its Impact on Clinical Performance of Patients Monitored with AI-TeleHealth System. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(12). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121695
[Google Scholar] - Amornvit P, Sanohkan S. The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2019;16(24): http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245061
[Google Scholar] - Alisha KH, Batra P, Raghavan S, Sharma K, Talwar A. A New Frame for Orienting Infants With Cleft Lip and Palate During 3- Dimensional Facial Scanning. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(7):946–50. DOI: 10.1177/10556656211028512
[Google Scholar] - Pellitteri F, Brucculeri L, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Comparison of the accuracy of digital face scans obtained by two different scanners. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(5):641–9. DOI: 10.2319/092720-823.1
[Google Scholar] - Aung SC, Ngim RC, Lee ST. Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plast Surg. 1995;48(8):551–8. DOI: 10.1016/0007-1226(95)90043-8
[Google Scholar] - Othman SA, Ahmad R, Mericant AF, Jamaludin M. Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on facial images captured on a 3D camera. Aust Orthod J. 2013;29(1):58–65.
- D’Ettorre G, Farronato M, Candida E, Quinzi V, Grippaudo C. A comparison between stereophotogrammetry and smartphone structured light technology for three-dimensional face scanning. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(3):358–63. DOI: 10.2319/040921-290.1
[Google Scholar] - Quinzi V, Polizzi A, Ronsivalle V, Santonocito S, Conforte C, Manenti RJ. et al. Facial Scanning Accuracy with Stereophotogrammetry and Smartphone Technology in Children: A Systematic Review. Children. 2022;9(9):1390. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children9091390
[Google Scholar] - Saif W, Alshibani A. Smartphone-Based Photogrammetry Assessment in Comparison with a Compact Camera for Construction Management Applications. NATO Adv Sci Inst Ser E Appl Sci. 2022;12(3):1053. DOI:10.3390/app12031053
[Google Scholar]