Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand.
PPFACEDESIGN, The S Clinic, Bangkok 10120, Thailand.
J Healthc Eng. 2022 Aug 5;2022:2637078. doi: 10.1155/2022/2637078. eCollection 2022.
Most 3D scanners use optical technology that is impacted by lighting conditions, especially in triangulation with structured-light or laser techniques. However, the effect of ambient lights on the accuracy of the face scans remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of ambient lights on the accuracy of the face scans obtained from the face scanner (EinScan Pro 2X Plus, Shining 3D Tech. Co., LTD., Hangzhou, China). A head model was designed in Rhinoceros 5 software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA) and printed with 200 micron resolution of polylactic acid and was dented with 2.0 mm of carbide bur to aid in superimposition in software. The head model was measured by a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) to generate a reference stereolithography (STL) file as a control. The face model was scanned four times under nine light conditions: cool white (CW), warm white (WW), daylight (DL), natural light (NL), and illuminant (9w, 18w, 22w). Scan data were exported into an STL file. The scan STL files obtained were compared with the reference STL file by 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X version 17, Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The deviations and root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the reference model (trueness) and within the group (precision) were selected for the statistical analysis. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Company, Chicago, USA). The trueness and precision were evaluated with the one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons using the Tukey method. For trueness, the scanner showed the lowest RMSE under the NL group (77.18 ± 3.22) and the highest RMSE under the 18w-DL group (95.33 ± 6.89). There was a statistically significant difference between the NL group and the 18w-DL group ( < 0.05) for trueness. Similarly, for precision, the scanner showed the lowest RMSE under the NL group (56.92 ± 4.56) and the highest RMSE under the 9w-CW group (78.52 ± 10.61). There was statistically significant difference between NL, 18w-WW, 18w-CW, 18w-DL, 22w-WW, 22w-DL, 9w-CW, 9w-WW, and 9w-DL ( < 0.05) for the precision. Ambient lights affected the face scans. Under the natural light condition, the face scanner had the best accuracy in terms of both trueness and precision. The 18w-DL and 9w-WW conditions showed the least trueness whereasthe 9w-CW and 9w-DL conditions showed the least precision.
大多数 3D 扫描仪使用受光照条件影响的光学技术,尤其是在使用结构光或激光技术进行三角测量时。然而,环境光对面部扫描准确性的影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在调查环境光对面部扫描仪(EinScan Pro 2X Plus,Shining 3D Tech. Co.,LTD.,杭州)获得的面部扫描准确性的影响。使用 Rhinoceros 5 软件(Rhino,Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows,华盛顿特区,美国)设计了一个头部模型,并使用 200 微米分辨率的聚乳酸进行打印,并使用 2.0 毫米的碳化硼钻头进行凹陷,以帮助在软件中进行叠加。使用坐标测量机(CMM)测量头部模型,以生成参考立体光刻(STL)文件作为对照。在九种光照条件下对面部模型进行了四次扫描:冷白光(CW)、暖白光(WW)、日光(DL)、自然光(NL)和光源(9w、18w、22w)。扫描数据导出为 STL 文件。使用 3D 检测软件(Geomagic Control X 版本 17,Geomagic,莫里斯维尔,北卡罗来纳州,美国)将获得的扫描 STL 文件与参考 STL 文件进行比较。使用 SPSS 20.0(IBM 公司,芝加哥,美国)对参考模型(准确性)和组内(精度)之间的偏差和均方根误差(RMSE)进行统计分析。使用 Tukey 法进行多组比较的单因素方差分析来评估准确性和精度。对于准确性,NL 组的扫描仪显示出最低的 RMSE(77.18±3.22),18w-DL 组的扫描仪显示出最高的 RMSE(95.33±6.89)。NL 组和 18w-DL 组之间存在统计学上的显著差异( < 0.05)。同样,对于精度,NL 组的扫描仪显示出最低的 RMSE(56.92±4.56),9w-CW 组的扫描仪显示出最高的 RMSE(78.52±10.61)。NL、18w-WW、18w-CW、18w-DL、22w-WW、22w-DL、9w-CW、9w-WW 和 9w-DL 之间存在统计学上的显著差异( < 0.05)。环境光对面部扫描有影响。在自然光条件下,面部扫描仪在准确性和精度方面均具有最佳性能。18w-DL 和 9w-WW 条件的准确性最低,而 9w-CW 和 9w-DL 条件的精度最低。