Philippe Nuytens , Gennaro Ruggiero , Stefan Vandeweghe , Rani D'haese
{"title":"手持式、台式和移动3D人脸扫描系统的准确性和精确性：体外研究","authors":"Philippe Nuytens , Gennaro Ruggiero , Stefan Vandeweghe , Rani D'haese","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This in vitro study investigated the trueness and precision of three different face scanning systems: a handheld, a desktop and a mobile 3D face scanning system.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Fourteen landmarks were placed on a mannequin head, and sixteen inter-landmark distances were measured using a digital vernier caliper, repeated 20 times over 80 days. Three 3D face scanning systems were evaluated: a handheld (Metismile; Shining 3D Tech Co., Hangzhou, China), a desktop (RAYFace v2.0; Ray Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea), and a mobile application (Heges, Simon Marinek) on a smart device (iPad Pro X, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA). Sixty facial scans were analyzed using metrology software (Geomagic Control X), and inter-landmark distances were compared to anthropometric measurements. Trueness was determined by absolute linear deviation and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, with Bonferroni and Tamhane tests for significant variance. Precision was compared to anthropometric measurements and analyzed using Kruskall-Wallis test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>3D analysis showed that the handheld scanner had the highest trueness (0.18 ± 0.15 mm) and precision (0.22 ± 0.04 mm). The desktop scanner had a trueness of 0.35 ± 0.26 mm and precision of 0.61 ± 0.18 mm, while the mobile scan application had a trueness of 0.54 ± 0.34 mm and precision of 0.47 ± 0.12 mm. All systems showed the highest trueness for vertical measurements compared to horizontal measurements. In the lower face, the precision was higher than anthropometric measurements for all 3D face scanning systems.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The handheld scanner demonstrated the highest trueness and its precision surpassed anthropometric measurements. The desktop scanner outperformed the mobile scan application in trueness but not in precision.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>The handheld, the desktop and the mobile face scanning system showed clinically acceptable trueness (< 0.6 mm) and could be used for virtual facebow transfer. All 3D face scanning systems in the present study demonstrated superior precision in the lower face compared to anthropometric measurements.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"155 ","pages":"Article 105639"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trueness and precision of a handheld, a desktop and a mobile 3D face scanning system: An in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"Philippe Nuytens , Gennaro Ruggiero , Stefan Vandeweghe , Rani D'haese\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This in vitro study investigated the trueness and precision of three different face scanning systems: a handheld, a desktop and a mobile 3D face scanning system.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Fourteen landmarks were placed on a mannequin head, and sixteen inter-landmark distances were measured using a digital vernier caliper, repeated 20 times over 80 days. Three 3D face scanning systems were evaluated: a handheld (Metismile; Shining 3D Tech Co., Hangzhou, China), a desktop (RAYFace v2.0; Ray Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea), and a mobile application (Heges, Simon Marinek) on a smart device (iPad Pro X, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA). Sixty facial scans were analyzed using metrology software (Geomagic Control X), and inter-landmark distances were compared to anthropometric measurements. Trueness was determined by absolute linear deviation and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, with Bonferroni and Tamhane tests for significant variance. Precision was compared to anthropometric measurements and analyzed using Kruskall-Wallis test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>3D analysis showed that the handheld scanner had the highest trueness (0.18 ± 0.15 mm) and precision (0.22 ± 0.04 mm). The desktop scanner had a trueness of 0.35 ± 0.26 mm and precision of 0.61 ± 0.18 mm, while the mobile scan application had a trueness of 0.54 ± 0.34 mm and precision of 0.47 ± 0.12 mm. All systems showed the highest trueness for vertical measurements compared to horizontal measurements. In the lower face, the precision was higher than anthropometric measurements for all 3D face scanning systems.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The handheld scanner demonstrated the highest trueness and its precision surpassed anthropometric measurements. The desktop scanner outperformed the mobile scan application in trueness but not in precision.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>The handheld, the desktop and the mobile face scanning system showed clinically acceptable trueness (< 0.6 mm) and could be used for virtual facebow transfer. All 3D face scanning systems in the present study demonstrated superior precision in the lower face compared to anthropometric measurements.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"155 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105639\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225000843\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225000843","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的研究手持式、台式和移动三维人脸扫描系统的准确性和准确性。材料和方法在人体模型头部放置14个地标，使用数字游标卡尺测量16个地标间的距离，在80天内重复20次。评估了三种3D面部扫描系统：手持式(Metismile；闪亮3D科技有限公司，杭州，中国)，桌面(RAYFace v2.0；Ray Co., Ltd，京畿道，韩国)，以及智能设备上的移动应用程序（Heges, Simon Marinek） （iPad Pro X, Apple Inc., Cupertino， CA）。使用测量软件（Geomagic Control X）分析60个面部扫描，并将地标间距离与人体测量值进行比较。正确度以绝对线性偏差确定，采用单因素方差分析，采用Bonferroni和Tamhane检验。精确度与人体测量值进行比较，并使用Kruskall-Wallis试验进行分析。结果三维分析显示，手持扫描仪具有最高的真实度（0.18±0.15 mm）和精度（0.22±0.04 mm）。桌面扫描仪的真实度为0.35±0.26 mm，精度为0.61±0.18 mm，而移动扫描仪的真实度为0.54±0.34 mm，精度为0.47±0.12 mm。与水平测量相比，所有系统在垂直测量中显示出最高的准确性。对于下面部，所有3D面部扫描系统的精度都高于人体测量值。结论手持式扫描仪具有最高的真实度，其精度优于人体测量。桌面扫描仪在正确率上优于移动扫描应用程序，但在精度上不佳。临床意义手持式、台式和移动面部扫描系统显示临床可接受的真实度(<；0.6 mm)，可用于虚拟脸弓转移。与人体测量测量相比，本研究中所有3D面部扫描系统在面部下部显示出更高的精度。
Trueness and precision of a handheld, a desktop and a mobile 3D face scanning system: An in vitro study
Objective
This in vitro study investigated the trueness and precision of three different face scanning systems: a handheld, a desktop and a mobile 3D face scanning system.
Material and methods
Fourteen landmarks were placed on a mannequin head, and sixteen inter-landmark distances were measured using a digital vernier caliper, repeated 20 times over 80 days. Three 3D face scanning systems were evaluated: a handheld (Metismile; Shining 3D Tech Co., Hangzhou, China), a desktop (RAYFace v2.0; Ray Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, Korea), and a mobile application (Heges, Simon Marinek) on a smart device (iPad Pro X, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA). Sixty facial scans were analyzed using metrology software (Geomagic Control X), and inter-landmark distances were compared to anthropometric measurements. Trueness was determined by absolute linear deviation and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, with Bonferroni and Tamhane tests for significant variance. Precision was compared to anthropometric measurements and analyzed using Kruskall-Wallis test.
Results
3D analysis showed that the handheld scanner had the highest trueness (0.18 ± 0.15 mm) and precision (0.22 ± 0.04 mm). The desktop scanner had a trueness of 0.35 ± 0.26 mm and precision of 0.61 ± 0.18 mm, while the mobile scan application had a trueness of 0.54 ± 0.34 mm and precision of 0.47 ± 0.12 mm. All systems showed the highest trueness for vertical measurements compared to horizontal measurements. In the lower face, the precision was higher than anthropometric measurements for all 3D face scanning systems.
Conclusions
The handheld scanner demonstrated the highest trueness and its precision surpassed anthropometric measurements. The desktop scanner outperformed the mobile scan application in trueness but not in precision.
Clinical significance
The handheld, the desktop and the mobile face scanning system showed clinically acceptable trueness (< 0.6 mm) and could be used for virtual facebow transfer. All 3D face scanning systems in the present study demonstrated superior precision in the lower face compared to anthropometric measurements.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis.
Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.
The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
