Artec Leo 手持式扫描仪和 iPad Pro 用于颈椎和颅面数据 3D 扫描的比较评估:评估精度、准确性和用户体验。

IF 3.2 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING 3D printing in medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1186/s41205-024-00245-8
Samuel D J Spears, Thomas Lester, Ryo Torii, Deepak M Kalaskar
{"title":"Artec Leo 手持式扫描仪和 iPad Pro 用于颈椎和颅面数据 3D 扫描的比较评估:评估精度、准确性和用户体验。","authors":"Samuel D J Spears, Thomas Lester, Ryo Torii, Deepak M Kalaskar","doi":"10.1186/s41205-024-00245-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study compares the precision, accuracy, and user experience of 3D body surface scanning of human subjects using the Artec Leo hand-held scanner and the iPad Pro as 3D scanning devices for capturing cervical and craniofacial data. The investigation includes assessing methods for correcting 'dropped head syndrome' during scanning, to demonstrate the ability of the scanner to be used to reconstruct body surface of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighteen volunteers with no prior history of neck weakness were scanned three times in three different positions, using the two different devices. Surface area, scanning time, and participant comfort scores were evaluated for both devices. Precision and accuracy were assessed using Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Surface area comparisons revealed no significant differences between devices and positions. Scanning times showed no significant difference between devices or positions. Comfort scores varied across positions. MAD analysis identified chin to chest measurements as having the highest variance, especially in scanning position 3. However, no statistical differences were found. MAPE results confirmed accuracy below 5% error for both devices. ICC scores indicated good reliability for both measurement methods, particularly for chin to chest measurements in positions 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The iPad Pro using the Qlone app demonstrates a viable alternative to the Artec Leo, particularly for capturing head and neck surface area within a clinical setting. The scanning resolution, with an error margin within ±5%, is consistent with clinically accepted standards for orthosis design, where padding and final fit adjustments allow for bespoke devices that accommodate patient comfort. This study highlights the comparative performance of the iPad, as well as suggests two methods which can be used within clinics to correct head drop for scanning.</p>","PeriodicalId":72036,"journal":{"name":"3D printing in medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587624/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of Artec Leo hand-held scanner and iPad Pro for 3D scanning of cervical and craniofacial data: assessing precision, accuracy, and user experience.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel D J Spears, Thomas Lester, Ryo Torii, Deepak M Kalaskar\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41205-024-00245-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study compares the precision, accuracy, and user experience of 3D body surface scanning of human subjects using the Artec Leo hand-held scanner and the iPad Pro as 3D scanning devices for capturing cervical and craniofacial data. The investigation includes assessing methods for correcting 'dropped head syndrome' during scanning, to demonstrate the ability of the scanner to be used to reconstruct body surface of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighteen volunteers with no prior history of neck weakness were scanned three times in three different positions, using the two different devices. Surface area, scanning time, and participant comfort scores were evaluated for both devices. Precision and accuracy were assessed using Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Surface area comparisons revealed no significant differences between devices and positions. Scanning times showed no significant difference between devices or positions. Comfort scores varied across positions. MAD analysis identified chin to chest measurements as having the highest variance, especially in scanning position 3. However, no statistical differences were found. MAPE results confirmed accuracy below 5% error for both devices. ICC scores indicated good reliability for both measurement methods, particularly for chin to chest measurements in positions 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The iPad Pro using the Qlone app demonstrates a viable alternative to the Artec Leo, particularly for capturing head and neck surface area within a clinical setting. The scanning resolution, with an error margin within ±5%, is consistent with clinically accepted standards for orthosis design, where padding and final fit adjustments allow for bespoke devices that accommodate patient comfort. This study highlights the comparative performance of the iPad, as well as suggests two methods which can be used within clinics to correct head drop for scanning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587624/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"3D printing in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00245-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3D printing in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-024-00245-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究比较了使用Artec Leo手持式扫描仪和iPad Pro作为三维扫描设备对人体进行三维体表扫描以获取颈部和颅面数据的精度、准确性和用户体验。调查包括评估在扫描过程中纠正 "掉头综合症 "的方法,以证明扫描仪用于重建患者体表的能力:方法:使用两种不同的设备,以三种不同的姿势对 18 名没有颈部无力病史的志愿者进行了三次扫描。对两种设备的表面积、扫描时间和参与者舒适度评分进行了评估。使用平均绝对偏差 (MAD)、平均绝对百分比误差 (MAPE) 和类内相关系数 (ICC) 对精确度和准确性进行评估:结果:表面积比较显示,不同设备和位置之间没有明显差异。扫描时间在不同设备和位置之间无明显差异。不同体位的舒适度评分有所不同。MAD 分析表明,下巴到胸部的测量值差异最大,尤其是在扫描位置 3。不过,没有发现统计差异。MAPE 结果证实两种设备的准确度均低于 5%。ICC 分数表明两种测量方法都具有良好的可靠性,尤其是在位置 1 和位置 3 的下巴到胸部测量:使用 Qlone 应用程序的 iPad Pro 是 Artec Leo 的可行替代品,尤其适用于在临床环境中捕捉头颈部表面积。扫描分辨率的误差范围在±5%以内,符合临床公认的矫形器设计标准,通过填充和最终配合调整,可定制出满足患者舒适度的矫形器。这项研究强调了 iPad 的比较性能,并提出了两种可用于临床的方法,以纠正扫描时的头部下垂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative evaluation of Artec Leo hand-held scanner and iPad Pro for 3D scanning of cervical and craniofacial data: assessing precision, accuracy, and user experience.

Aim: This study compares the precision, accuracy, and user experience of 3D body surface scanning of human subjects using the Artec Leo hand-held scanner and the iPad Pro as 3D scanning devices for capturing cervical and craniofacial data. The investigation includes assessing methods for correcting 'dropped head syndrome' during scanning, to demonstrate the ability of the scanner to be used to reconstruct body surface of patients.

Methods: Eighteen volunteers with no prior history of neck weakness were scanned three times in three different positions, using the two different devices. Surface area, scanning time, and participant comfort scores were evaluated for both devices. Precision and accuracy were assessed using Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC).

Results: Surface area comparisons revealed no significant differences between devices and positions. Scanning times showed no significant difference between devices or positions. Comfort scores varied across positions. MAD analysis identified chin to chest measurements as having the highest variance, especially in scanning position 3. However, no statistical differences were found. MAPE results confirmed accuracy below 5% error for both devices. ICC scores indicated good reliability for both measurement methods, particularly for chin to chest measurements in positions 1 and 3.

Conclusion: The iPad Pro using the Qlone app demonstrates a viable alternative to the Artec Leo, particularly for capturing head and neck surface area within a clinical setting. The scanning resolution, with an error margin within ±5%, is consistent with clinically accepted standards for orthosis design, where padding and final fit adjustments allow for bespoke devices that accommodate patient comfort. This study highlights the comparative performance of the iPad, as well as suggests two methods which can be used within clinics to correct head drop for scanning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Virtual 3D reconstruction of complex congenital cardiac anatomy from 3D rotational angiography. Development and biomechanical evaluation of a 3D printed analogue of the human lumbar spine. Evaluating the value of 3D-printed bone models with fracture fragments connected by flexible rods for training and preoperative planning. Low-cost male urogenital simulator for penile implant surgery training: a 3D printing approach. Point-of-care additive manufacturing: state of the art and adoption in Spanish hospitals during pre to post COVID-19 era.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1