Jindanil Thanatchaporn, Ponbuddhichai Ranida, Massant Céline, Xu Lianyi, Fontenele Rocharles Cavalcante, de Llano-Pérula Maria Cadenas, Jacobs Reinhilde
Department of Imaging and Pathology, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Int J Dent. 2025 May 14;2025:8822293. doi: 10.1155/ijod/8822293. eCollection 2025.
To compare the clinical applicability in terms of observer perception, patient perception, and clinical usability of stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and both static and portable structured light (SL) three-dimensional (3D) face scanners. This comparison was based on the perception of medical observers, nonmedical observers, and patients themselves, using two-dimensional (2D) photographs as clinical reference. Facial images of 20 patients (12 females and eight males) were obtained using a professional camera (clinical reference) and three facial scanners: Vectra H1 (SPG), RAYFace RFS200 (static SL), and iReal 2E (portable SL). Instant similarity rank (ISR) and similarity score (SS) were evaluated by seven medical and six nonmedical observers, and intra- and interobserver reliability were calculated. Patients rated the overall SS (OSS) and comfort. Scanning time, processing time, need for image retake, and user-friendliness were rated by two operators who captured the images. SPG obtained the best ISR, followed by static and portable SL. All scanners showed overall good SS and OSS. Static SL was the fastest, whereas SPG and portable SL recorded same total time. Retake rates for SPG, static SL, and portable SL were 10%, 15%, and 35%, respectively. User-friendliness and comfort ranged from moderate to good for all scanners. All tested scanners show a good clinical applicability, even though each scanner came with specific advantages and drawbacks for clinical use. SPG excelled in instant similarity, but had slower processing times. Static SL offered a balance of speed, comfort, and user-friendliness, though not always the best in similarity. Portable SL had higher retake rates and moderate comfort and user-friendliness. Similarity perception across scanners was comparable for both medical and non-medical observers, highlighting the need for clinicians to consider all scanner features to best meet clinical requirements.
比较立体摄影测量法（SPG）以及静态和便携式结构光（SL）三维（3D）面部扫描仪在观察者感知、患者感知和临床可用性方面的临床适用性。该比较基于医学观察者、非医学观察者和患者自身的感知，以二维（2D）照片作为临床参考。使用专业相机（临床参考）和三台面部扫描仪获取了20名患者（12名女性和8名男性）的面部图像：Vectra H1（SPG）、RAYFace RFS200（静态SL）和iReal 2E（便携式SL）。由7名医学观察者和6名非医学观察者评估即时相似性排名（ISR）和相似性得分（SS），并计算观察者内和观察者间的可靠性。患者对总体SS（OSS）和舒适度进行评分。由两名拍摄图像的操作人员对扫描时间、处理时间、重新拍摄图像的需求和用户友好性进行评分。SPG获得了最佳的ISR，其次是静态和便携式SL。所有扫描仪的总体SS和OSS都表现良好。静态SL最快，而SPG和便携式SL的总时间相同。SPG、静态SL和便携式SL的重新拍摄率分别为10%、15%和35%。所有扫描仪的用户友好性和舒适度从中等到良好不等。所有测试的扫描仪都显示出良好的临床适用性，尽管每种扫描仪在临床使用中都有特定的优缺点。SPG在即时相似性方面表现出色，但处理时间较慢。静态SL在速度、舒适度和用户友好性之间取得了平衡，尽管在相似性方面并不总是最佳的。便携式SL的重新拍摄率较高，舒适度和用户友好性中等。医学和非医学观察者对不同扫描仪的相似性感知相当，这突出表明临床医生需要考虑所有扫描仪的功能，以最好地满足临床需求。
