Prog Orthod. 2023 Dec 25;24(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40510-023-00496-x.


BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of three different 3D facial scanning systems, relying, respectively, on stereophotogrammetry, structured light and a smartphone app and camera.

METHODS: Thirty subjects have been scanned with three different facial scanning systems, stereophotogrammetry, structured light and a smartphone app and camera. Linear measurements were compared with direct anthropometries measured on the patient’s face, while the study of areas (forehead, tip of the nose, chin, right and left cheek) was evaluated by overlapping scans using the Geomagic Control X program. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS v28 software.

RESULTS: The ANOVA test was used to compare linear distances and direct anthropometry measurements, revealing statically significant values for all distances investigated, especially for the Face Hunter scanner, except for the Prn-Pog’ distance (p = 0.092). The three facial scans were superimposed pairwise almost the 100 per cent of the overlapping areas fell within the tolerance limits for all three comparisons analysed. The chin was the most accurately reproduced, with no differences among scanners, while the forehead proved to be the least accurately reproduced by all scanners.

CONCLUSIONS: All three acquisition systems proved to be effective in capturing 3D images of the face, with the exception of the Face Hunter scanner, that produced statistically significant differences in linear measurements for the distances Tr-Na’ and Zyg-Zyg with respect to direct anthropometric measurements.

PMID:38143253 | DOI:10.1186/s40510-023-00496-x