Accuracy of Mobile Device-Compatible 3D Scanners for Facial Digitization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

The accurate assessment and acquisition of facial anatomical information significantly contributes to enhancing the reliability of treatments in dental and medical fields, and has applications in fields such as craniomaxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, prosthodontics, orthopedics, and forensic medicine. Mobile device-compatible 3D facial scanners have been reported to be an effective tool for clinical use, but the accuracy of digital facial impressions obtained with the scanners has not been explored.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review comparisons of the accuracy of mobile device-compatible face scanners for facial digitization with that of systems for professional 3D facial scanning.

METHODS

Individual search strategies were employed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases to search for articles published up to May 27, 2020. Peer-reviewed journal articles evaluating the accuracy of 3D facial models generated by mobile device-compatible face scanners were included. Cohen d effect size estimates and confidence intervals of standardized mean difference (SMD) data sets were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

By automatic database searching, 3942 articles were identified, of which 11 articles were considered eligible for narrative review, with 6 studies included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the accuracy of face models obtained using mobile device-compatible face scanners was significantly lower than that of face models obtained using professional 3D facial scanners (SMD 3.96 mm, 95% CI 2.81-5.10 mm; z=6.78; P<.001). The difference between face scanning when performed on inanimate facial models was significantly higher (SMD 10.53 mm, 95% CI 6.29-14.77 mm) than that when performed on living participants (SMD 2.58 mm, 95% CI 1.70-3.47 mm, P<.001, df=12.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, mobile device-compatible face scanners did not perform as well as professional scanning systems in 3D facial acquisition, but the deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of <1.5 mm. Significant differences between results when 3D facial scans were performed on inanimate facial objects and when performed on the faces of living participants were found; thus, caution should be exercised when interpreting results from studies conducted on inanimate objects.