Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboudumc 3D Lab, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 May 15;38(6):579-585. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjx227.
Three-dimensional (3D) imaging of the face is being used extensively in medicine for clinical decision making, surgical planning, and research. Nowadays, several companies are offering a broad range of 3D imaging systems, varying in price, method, and mobility. However, most planning and evaluation methods are created and validated solely with one imaging system. Therefore, it is important to analyze possible differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between different systems.
The objective of this study was to analyze differences in the 3D surface reconstruction between three systems: 3dMDface system, Vectra XT, and Artec Eva.
Three-dimensional images of the face were acquired from 15 healthy patients with each imaging system. Reproducibility of each device was calculated and a comparison of the Vectra XT and Artec Eva with the 3dMDface was made.
All 3D imaging devices showed high reproducibility, with a mean difference of 0.18 ± 0.15 mm (3dMDface system), 0.15 ± 0.15 mm (Vectra XT), and 0.26 ± 0.24 mm (Artec Eva). No significant difference in reproducibility was found between the Vectra XT and 3dMDface, while a significant difference was found between 3dMDface and Artec Eva, and between Vectra XT and Artec Eva. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Vectra XT was 0.32 ± 0.26 mm. The mean difference between 3dMDface and Artec Eva was 0.44 ± 1.09 mm.
All three imaging devices showed high reproducibility and accuracy. Although the Artec Eva showed a significant lower reproducibility, the difference found was not clinically relevant. Therefore, using these different systems alongside each other in clinical and research settings is possible.
三维（3D）面部成像在医学临床决策、手术规划和研究中得到广泛应用。如今，多家公司提供广泛的 3D 成像系统，价格、方法和便携性各不相同。然而，大多数规划和评估方法仅使用一种成像系统创建和验证。因此，分析不同系统之间 3D 表面重建的差异非常重要。
本研究旨在分析三种系统（3dMDface 系统、Vectra XT 和 Artec Eva）之间的 3D 表面重建差异。
使用每个成像系统对 15 名健康患者的面部进行 3D 图像采集。计算每个设备的可重复性，并对 Vectra XT 和 Artec Eva 与 3dMDface 进行比较。
所有 3D 成像设备的可重复性均较高，平均差异分别为 0.18±0.15mm（3dMDface 系统）、0.15±0.15mm（Vectra XT）和 0.26±0.24mm（Artec Eva）。Vectra XT 和 3dMDface 之间的可重复性无显著差异，而 3dMDface 和 Artec Eva 之间以及 Vectra XT 和 Artec Eva 之间存在显著差异。3dMDface 和 Vectra XT 之间的平均差异为 0.32±0.26mm，3dMDface 和 Artec Eva 之间的平均差异为 0.44±1.09mm。
三种成像设备均具有较高的可重复性和准确性。虽然 Artec Eva 的可重复性显著较低，但发现的差异无临床意义。因此，在临床和研究环境中可以同时使用这些不同的系统。
