The International journal of prosthodontics · 2022
Trueness of One Stationary and Two Mobile Systems for Three-Dimensional Facial Scanning.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Can, Shi Yi-Fei, Xiong Qian, Xie Pei-Jin, Wu Jun-Hua, Liu Wei-Cai
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the trueness of one stationary and two mobile systems for 3D facial scanning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were included in this study. After marking facial soft tissue landmarks, their faces were scanned using three facial scanning systems: the Bellus3D Dental Pro app on an iPad Pro 2020 (Apple; IP); the ARC-7 Face Scanning System (Bellus3D; BA); and the EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech; EP) following the manufacturers' operating instructions. Three-dimensional images were reconstructed with corresponding software and saved in object (OBJ) file format. The interlandmark distances were measured and compared to direct caliper measurements, and absolute error (AE) was chosen as the measurement to determine the trueness of the three scanners. The normal distribution and variance of homogeneity were measured, and then the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis H test. The significance level was set at P = .05.
RESULTS: For the measurement of interlandmark distances, no significant differences were found among the four measuring techniques, and the mean AEs of the IP, BA, and EP systems were 1.17 ± 0.80 mm, 0.76 ± 0.61 mm, and 0.69 ± 0.65 mm.
CONCLUSION: The three facial scanning systems tested provided a reliable 3D facial reconstruction. The portable IP system could meet the clinical requirements for facial scanning, but it is suggested to select the EP and BA systems when a higher trueness is required.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were included in this study. After marking facial soft tissue landmarks, their faces were scanned using three facial scanning systems: the Bellus3D Dental Pro app on an iPad Pro 2020 (Apple; IP); the ARC-7 Face Scanning System (Bellus3D; BA); and the EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech; EP) following the manufacturers' operating instructions. Three-dimensional images were reconstructed with corresponding software and saved in object (OBJ) file format. The interlandmark distances were measured and compared to direct caliper measurements, and absolute error (AE) was chosen as the measurement to determine the trueness of the three scanners. The normal distribution and variance of homogeneity were measured, and then the data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis H test. The significance level was set at P = .05.
RESULTS: For the measurement of interlandmark distances, no significant differences were found among the four measuring techniques, and the mean AEs of the IP, BA, and EP systems were 1.17 ± 0.80 mm, 0.76 ± 0.61 mm, and 0.69 ± 0.65 mm.
CONCLUSION: The three facial scanning systems tested provided a reliable 3D facial reconstruction. The portable IP system could meet the clinical requirements for facial scanning, but it is suggested to select the EP and BA systems when a higher trueness is required.