These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Facial scanning accuracy depending on the alignment algorithm and digitized surface area location: An in vitro study.
    Author: Revilla-León M, Pérez-Barquero JA, Barmak BA, Agustín-Panadero R, Fernández-Estevan L, Att W.
    Journal: J Dent; 2021 Jul; 110():103680. PubMed ID: 33901605.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To measure the accuracy (trueness and precision) of a facial scanner depending on the alignment method and the digitized surface area location. METHODS: Fourteen markers were adhered on a head mannequin and digitized using an industrial scanner (GOM Atos Q 3D 12 M; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH). A control mesh was acquired. Subsequently, the mannequin was digitized using a facial scanner (Arc4; Bellus3D) (n = 30). The control mesh was delineated into 10 areas. Based on the alignment procedures, two groups were created: reference best fit (RBF group) and landmark-based best fit (LA group). The root mean square was used to calculate the discrepancy between the control mesh and each facial scan. A 2-way ANOVA and Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to compare trueness and precision between the 2 groups across 10 areas (α = .05). RESULTS: Both alignment algorithms (P = .007) and digitized area (P < .001) were significant predictors of trueness with a significant interaction between the two predictors (F (9, 580) =25.13, P < .001). Tukey pairwise comparison showed that there was a significant difference between mean trueness values of RBF (mean=0.53 mm) and LA (mean=0.55 mm) groups. Moreover, a significant difference was detected among the trueness values across surface areas. The A9-area (left tragus area) had the highest and A5-area (right cheek area) had the lowest mean trueness. Both alignment algorithm (P < .001) and digitized surface area (P < .001) were significant predictors of precision with a significant interaction between the two predictors (F (9, 580) =14.34, P < .001). Tukey pairwise comparison showed that there was a significant difference between mean precision values of RBF (mean=0.38 mm) and LA (mean=0.35 mm) groups. Moreover, a significant difference was detected among the precision values across surface areas. Comparing the surface areas, A9-area had the highest and A10-area (forehead area) had the lowest mean precision. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment procedures influenced on the scanning trueness and precision mean values, but the facial scanner accuracy values obtained were within the clinically acceptable accuracy threshold of less or equal than 2 mm. Furthermore, the scanning accuracy (for both trueness and precision) depended on the location of the scanned surface area, being more accurate on the middle of the face than on the sides of the face.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]