The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners.
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 schedule...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322358 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849719142521765888 |
|---|---|
| author | Nichakun Tangthaweesuk Somchart Raocharernporn |
| author_facet | Nichakun Tangthaweesuk Somchart Raocharernporn |
| author_sort | Nichakun Tangthaweesuk |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5ac3d3d4f20b410e96a2e81c7fcc38dd |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-5ac3d3d4f20b410e96a2e81c7fcc38dd2025-08-20T03:12:12ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032025-01-01205e032235810.1371/journal.pone.0322358The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners.Nichakun TangthaweesukSomchart RaocharernpornThis 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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322358 |
| spellingShingle | Nichakun Tangthaweesuk Somchart Raocharernporn The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. PLoS ONE |
| title | The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. |
| title_full | The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. |
| title_fullStr | The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. |
| title_full_unstemmed | The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. |
| title_short | The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners. |
| title_sort | accuracy of three dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322358 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nichakuntangthaweesuk theaccuracyofthreedimensionalfacialscanobtainedfromthreedifferent3dscanners AT somchartraocharernporn theaccuracyofthreedimensionalfacialscanobtainedfromthreedifferent3dscanners AT nichakuntangthaweesuk accuracyofthreedimensionalfacialscanobtainedfromthreedifferent3dscanners AT somchartraocharernporn accuracyofthreedimensionalfacialscanobtainedfromthreedifferent3dscanners |