Evaluation of a portable low-budget three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry system for nasal analysis. Issue 12 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ritschl, Lucas M.; Grill, Florian D.; Mittermeier, Fabienna; Lonic, Daniel; Wolff, Klaus-Dietrich; Roth, Maximilian; Loeffelbein, Denys J.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 46:Issue 12(2018)
• Page Start: 2008
• Page End: 2016
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry -- Nose -- CAD/CAM nasoalveolar molding -- Portable facial scanner; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.04.025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Three-dimensional (3D) photogrammetry has reached high standards and accuracy but is mainly conducted with stationary and expensive systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a low-budget portable system with special regard to the gracile and challenging nasal region. Material and Methods: 3D models of the perinasal area were acquired by impression-taking and the scanning of the generated plaster models (3Shape D500) or with a portable low-budget 3D stereophotogrammetry (FUEL3D ® SCANIFY ® ) system. Four examiners analysed defined landmarks of the generated Standard Tessellation Language files with regard to accuracy and interobserver reliability by using 3dMDvultus™ software. A semi-automatic 3D best-fit analysis of both models was performed by using Geomagic ® and the Root Mean Squared (RMS) errors were calculated. Results: 41 volunteers were included, with 22 perinasal and perioral landmarks, 15 3D distances and eight 3D angles being analysed per data set. In a point-based analysis the mean spreads were partially smaller in the plaster model scans. Most measurements showed very high (>0.8) to excellent (>0.9) intraclass correlation coefficients, the lowest being found for columella length (0.686) and left nostril width (0.636). Overall, the mean RMS error between the superimposed surfaces was 0.89 ± 0.22 mm in the best-fit analysis. Conclusions: The corresponding software program was operator-friendly. The findings indicate that the analysed, affordable and portable system is a feasible solution for 3D image acquisition with comparable accuracy reported in the literature. Further studies will analyse the feasibility in neonates.