Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2020 Dec 30

PMID 33375533

Citations 5

Authors

Hang-Nga Mai

Jaeil Kim

Youn-Hee Choi

Du-Hyeong Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The use of three-dimensional face-scanning systems to obtain facial models is of increasing interest, however, systematic assessments of the reliability of portable face-scan devices have not been widely conducted. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed considering the accuracy of facial models obtained by portable face-scanners in comparison with that of those obtained by stationary face-scanning systems. A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for articles published from 1 January 2009 to 18 March 2020. A total of 2806 articles were identified, with 21 articles available for the narrative review and nine studies available for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the accuracy of the digital face models generated by the portable scanners was not significantly different from that of the stationary face-scanning systems (standard mean difference (95% confidence interval) = -0.325 mm (-1.186 to 0.536); z = -0.74; = 0.459). Within the comparison of the portable systems, no statistically significant difference was found concerning the accuracy of the facial models among scanning methods ( = 0.063). Overall, portable face-scan devices can be considered reliable for obtaining facial models. However, caution is needed when applying face-scanners with respect to scanning device settings, control of involuntary facial movements, landmark and facial region identifications, and scanning protocols.

Citing Articles

Influence of ambient light on the accuracy of different face scanning methods: an in-vitro study.

Keil P, Beuer F, Unkovskiy A, Atay E, Jennes M BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):229.

PMID: 39948549 PMC: 11827322. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05594-2.

Volumetric Analyses of Dysmorphic Maxillofacial Structures Using 3D Surface-Based Approaches: A Scoping Review.

Cappella A, Gaffuri F, Yang J, Tartaglia F, Solazzo R, Inchingolo F J Clin Med. 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39200882 PMC: 11355207. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13164740.

Accuracy of Augmented Reality-Assisted Navigation in Dental Implant Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Mai H, Dam V, Lee D J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e42040.

PMID: 36598798 PMC: 9856431. DOI: 10.2196/42040.

Facial Scanning Accuracy with Stereophotogrammetry and Smartphone Technology in Children: A Systematic Review.

Quinzi V, Polizzi A, Ronsivalle V, Santonocito S, Conforte C, Manenti R Children (Basel). 2022; 9(9).

PMID: 36138698 PMC: 9498045. DOI: 10.3390/children9091390.

Workflow to develop 3D designed personalized neonatal CPAP masks using iPhone structured light facial scanning.

Kamath A, Kamath M, Ekici S, Stans A, Colby C, Matsumoto J 3D Print Med. 2022; 8(1):23.

PMID: 35913689 PMC: 9341126. DOI: 10.1186/s41205-022-00155-7.

References

Ngoc V, Tran D, Dung T, Anh N, Nga V, Anh L . Perceptions of Dentists and Non-Professionals on Some Dental Factors Affecting Smile Aesthetics: A Study from Vietnam. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(5). PMC: 7084949. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17051638. View

Knoops P, Beaumont C, Borghi A, Rodriguez-Florez N, Breakey R, Rodgers W . Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017; 70(4):441-449. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015. View

Plooij J, Maal T, Haers P, Borstlap W, Kuijpers-Jagtman A, Berge S . Digital three-dimensional image fusion processes for planning and evaluating orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 40(4):341-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.10.013. View

Modabber A, Peters F, Kniha K, Goloborodko E, Ghassemi A, Lethaus B . Evaluation of the accuracy of a mobile and a stationary system for three-dimensional facial scanning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016; 44(10):1719-1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.08.008. View

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):e1-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. View

Gibelli D, Dolci C, Cappella A, Sforza C . Reliability of optical devices for three-dimensional facial anatomy description: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 49(8):1092-1106. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.10.019. View

Maues C, Casagrande M, Almeida R, Almeida M, Carvalho F . Three-dimensional surface models of the facial soft tissues acquired with a low-cost scanner. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47(9):1219-1225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.03.028. View

Launonen A, Vuollo V, Aarnivala H, Heikkinen T, Pirttiniemi P, Valkama A . Craniofacial Asymmetry from One to Three Years of Age: A Prospective Cohort Study with 3D Imaging. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(1). PMC: 7019243. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9010070. View

Zhang J, Liu M, Wang L, Chen S, Yuan P, Li J . Context-guided fully convolutional networks for joint craniomaxillofacial bone segmentation and landmark digitization. Med Image Anal. 2019; 60:101621. PMC: 7360136. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2019.101621. View

10.

Massot-Campos M, Oliver-Codina G . Optical Sensors and Methods for Underwater 3D Reconstruction. Sensors (Basel). 2015; 15(12):31525-57. PMC: 4721784. DOI: 10.3390/s151229864. View

11.

Elbashti M, Sumita Y, Aswehlee A, Seelaus R . Smartphone Application as a Low-Cost Alternative for Digitizing Facial Defects: Is It Accurate Enough for Clinical Application?. Int J Prosthodont. 2019; 32(6):541-543. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6347. View

12.

Douglas T . Image processing for craniofacial landmark identification and measurement: a review of photogrammetry and cephalometry. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2004; 28(7):401-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2004.06.002. View

13.

Gwilliam J, Cunningham S, Hutton T . Reproducibility of soft tissue landmarks on three-dimensional facial scans. Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28(5):408-15. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl024. View

14.

Chu Y, Yang J, Ma S, Ai D, Li W, Song H . Registration and fusion quantification of augmented reality based nasal endoscopic surgery. Med Image Anal. 2017; 42:241-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2017.08.003. View

15.

Liu C, Artopoulos A . Validation of a low-cost portable 3-dimensional face scanner. Imaging Sci Dent. 2019; 49(1):35-43. PMC: 6444006. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2019.49.1.35. View

16.

Secher J, Darvann T, Pinholt E . Accuracy and reproducibility of the DAVID SLS-2 scanner in three-dimensional facial imaging. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45(10):1662-1670. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.006. View

17.

Berssenbrugge P, Berlin N, Kebeck G, Runte C, Jung S, Kleinheinz J . 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014; 42(6):e327-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.028. View

18.

Bakirman T, Gumusay M, Catal Reis H, Selbesoglu M, Yosmaoglu S, Yaras M . Comparison of low cost 3D structured light scanners for face modeling. Appl Opt. 2017; 56(4):985-992. DOI: 10.1364/AO.56.000985. View

19.

Tzou C, Artner N, Pona I, Hold A, Placheta E, Kropatsch W . Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014; 67(4):489-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003. View

20.

Paul S, Chamberlin A, Hatt C, Nayak A, Danoff J . Reliability, validity, and precision of an active stereophotogrammetry system for three-dimensional evaluation of the human torso. Med Eng Phys. 2009; 31(10):1337-42. PMC: 3502070. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.08.011. View