Work

Three-dimensional facial scanning: quantitative and qualitative assessment of five different modalities with CBCT as a reference

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively and qualitatively assess five three-dimensional facial scanners with the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) derived soft tissue as a reference METHODS: Facial scans and CBCT images of five females and five males were used in this study. Each of two operators captured facial scans twice per patient using five different modalities (total 200 scans): static and portable SPG, portable SL scan, front- and rear-camera smartphone applications (apps). For quantitative assessment, scans were registered and compared to CBCT-derived soft tissue using surface-based analysis to assess accuracy (trueness and precision). Additionally, two operators evaluated time and retake rate. For qualitative assessment, patients and operators rated scans' realism immediately after scanning using a 3-point scale, rating also comfort and user-friendliness respectively. RESULTS: SPG and SL scanners demonstrated good trueness and precision, with SL showing higher precision. All scanners, including the apps, achieved clinically acceptable accuracy. Retake rates were lowest for static SPG and highest for front-camera app. Front- and rear-camera app were the fastest and slowest respectively. SPG and rear-camera app had the highest realism from both patients and operators. SPG and both apps were rated good for comfort and user-friendliness, while other devices were rated as fair. CONCLUSIONS: All scanners showed clinically acceptable accuracy and applicability, each with specific strengths and limitations. SPG and SL performed best overall. Front-camera app was fastest but had lower realism, while rear-camera app showed the lowest accuracy but high realism. Scanner selection should balance performance, realism, and specific clinical needs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Choosing the appropriate scanner requires careful consideration of performance, visual realism, and clinical objectives, given the variety of available technologies, each offering distinct benefits and drawbacks.

Source: Journal of Dentistry

DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106179