Abstract
Ample data exists about the high precision of three-dimensional (3D) scanning devices and their data acquisition of the facial surface. However, a question remains regarding which facial landmarks are reliable if identified in 3D images taken under clinical circumstances. Sources of error to be addressed could be technical, user dependent, or patient respectively anatomy related. Based on clinical 3D photos taken with the 3dMDface system, the intra observer repeatability of 27 facial landmarks in six cleft lip (CL) infants and one non-CL infant was evaluated based on a total of over 1,100 measurements. Data acquisition was sometimes challenging but successful in all patients. The mean error was 0.86 mm, with a range of 0.39 mm (Exocanthion) to 2.21 mm (soft gonion). Typically, landmarks provided a small mean error but still showed quite a high variance in measurements, for example, exocanthion from 0.04 mm to 0.93 mm. Vice versa, relatively imprecise landmarks still provide accurate data regarding specific spatial planes. One must be aware of the fact that the degree of precision is dependent on landmarks and spatial planes in question. In clinical investigations, the degree of reliability for landmarks evaluated should be taken into account. Additional reliability can be achieved via multiple measuring.
Highlights
Objective evaluation of the face is challenging
Based on clinical 3D photos taken with the 3dMDface system, the intra observer repeatability of 27 facial landmarks in six cleft lip (CL) infants and one non-CL infant was evaluated based on a total of over 1,100 measurements
The necessary system start up and registration process is not included and we strongly recommend to have the system ready once the child comes into the room since in most cases compliance is best at the beginning of the session and on should not waste that time spot for procedures that can be done ahead
Summary
Objective evaluation of the face is challenging. Meaningful assessment by basic measurements is hindered by the complex three-dimensional (3D) anatomy of the face because of its specific but not perfect symmetry. No standard has developed for three-dimensional imaging of the soft tissues so far. The state-of-the-art method for facial soft tissue evaluation and documentation is direct measurement and twodimensional (2D) photography [4,5,6]. Both have immanent downsides: Direct measurements are examiner-dependent and retrospective surveys are impossible. Both of those qualities limit the use of the application in clinical followup studies. Two-dimensional photography can be calibrated for true-to-scale measurements, but only distances between points in the exact same plane as the photo can be measured accurately. Volumetric measurements or image fusion techniques are not possible when utilizing 2D photos [1, 7,8,9,10,11,12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
