Three-dimensional surface scanners compared with standard anthropometric measurements for head shape

Caroline A.A Beaumont,Paul G.M Knoops,Alessandro Borghi,N.U Owase Jeelani,Maarten J Koudstaal,Silvia Schievano,David J Dunaway,Naiara Rodriguez-Florez

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2017.03.003

Caroline A.A Beaumont, Paul G.M Knoops + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.03.003

Copy DOI

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging devices designed to capture and quantify craniofacial surface morphology are becoming more common in clinical environments. Such scanners overcome the limitations of two-dimensional photographs while avoiding the ionizing radiation of computed tomography. The purpose of this study was to compare standard anthropometric cranial measurements with measurements taken from images acquired with 3D surface scanners.Two 3D scanners of different cost were used to acquire head shape data from thirteen adult volunteers: M4D scan and Structure Sensor. Head circumference and cephalic index were measured directly on the patients as well as on 3D scans acquired with the two scanners. To compare head volume measurements with a gold standard, magnetic resonance imaging scans were used. Repeatability and accuracy of both devices were evaluated.Intra-rater repeatability for both scanners was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.99, p < 0.001). Direct and digital measures of head circumference, cephalic index and head volume were strongly correlated (0.85 < r < 0.91, p < 0.001). Compared to direct measurements, accuracy was highest for M4D scan.Both 3D scanners provide reproducible data of head circumference, cephalic index and head volume and show a strong correlation with traditional measurements. However, care must be taken when using absolute values.

Highlights

Until recently, capturing head shape had been limited to measurements using traditional instruments during examination (Farkas, 1996)
Repeatability measurements for the M4D scanner and Structure Sensor are shown in Tables 4 and 5
Repeatability was defined by intraclass coefficient (ICC) as well as by the maximum error

Summary

Introduction

Until recently, capturing head shape had been limited to measurements using traditional instruments (e.g. spreading calipers and measurement tapes) during examination (Farkas, 1996). These “direct” measurements are simple and inexpensive to make. Two-dimensional (2D) photographs are commonly used to facilitate visualization, assessment, and treatment of facial abnormalities in craniofacial care. These images are subject to errors because of perspective, projection and lack of metric and three-dimensional (3D) information (Enciso et al, 2004)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion