Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2024 Jan 24;20(1):7.
doi: 10.1186/s13005-024-00406-4.

Comparison of three-dimensional imaging of the nose using three different 3D-photography systems: an observational study

Lucas M Ritschl  1 , Carolina Classen  2   3 , Paul Kilbertus  1 , Julia Eufinger  1 , Katharina Storck  4 , Andreas M Fichter  1 , Klaus-Dietrich Wolff  1 , Florian D Grill  1   5
Affiliations
Observational Study

Comparison of three-dimensional imaging of the nose using three different 3D-photography systems: an observational study

Lucas M Ritschl et al. Head Face Med. .

Abstract

Background: New 3D technologies for superficial soft tissue changes, especially in plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures, can improve the planning and documentation of facial surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare and determine the applicability and feasibility of three different 3D-photography systems in clinical practice imaging the nose.

Methods: A total of 16 healthy non-operated noses were included in this prospective study. A plaster model of each nose was produced, digitized, and converted to a .stl mesh (= ground truth model). Three-dimensional images of each nose were then taken using Artec Space Spider (gold standard), Planmeca ProFace®, and the Bellus3D Dental Pro application. All resulting .stl files were aligned to the ground truth model using MeshLab software, and the root mean square error (RMSE), mean surface distance (MSD), and Hausdorff distance (HD) were calculated.

Results: The Artec Space Spider 3D-photography system showed significantly better results compared to the two other systems in regard to RMSE, MSD, and HD (each p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between Planmeca ProFace® and Bellus3D Dental Pro in terms of RMSE, MSD, and HD. Overall, all three camera systems showed a clinically acceptable deviation to the reference model (range: -1.23-1.57 mm).

Conclusions: The three evaluated 3D-photography systems were suitable for nose imaging in the clinical routine. While Artec Space Spider showed the highest accuracy, the Bellus3D Dental Pro app may be the most feasible option for everyday clinical use due to its portability, ease of use, and low cost. This study presents three different systems, allowing readers to extrapolate to other systems when planning to introduce 3D photography in the clinical routine.

Keywords: 3D photography; 3D technologies, Face scan, TrueDepth; Rhinoplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Workflow for comparison of three-dimensional imaging of the nose using three different 3D-photography systems: data acquisition – data processing – data analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Data acquisition using three different 3D-photography systems
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A: Alignment and overlay of the plaster model to the nose acquired with Artec Space Spider in MeshLab® using the ICP algorithm Purple: .stl dataset of the nose to be superimposed; Beige: reference model Yellow dots/landmarks: Nostril top right/left, nostril base point right/left, alare right/left B: Both models after semi-automatic superposition
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Three-dimensional analyses done with the open-source software MeshLab® showing A: The median root mean square error (RMSE, [mm]) B: The median mean surface distance (MSD, [mm]) C: The median of the Hausdorff distance (HD, [voxel])
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Surface distance map of Artec Space Spider of subject 7 A: Frontal view B: Basal view C: Side view right D: Side view left
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Li Y, Yang X, Li D. The application of three-Dimensional Surface Imaging System in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(Supplement 1):76–83. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000813. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Koban KC, Perko P, Etzel L, Li Z, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. Validation of two handheld devices against a non-portable three-dimensional surface scanner and assessment of potential use for intraoperative facial imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2020;73(1):141–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.07.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parsa S, Basagaoglu B, Mackley K, Aitson P, Kenkel J, Amirlak B. Current and future photography techniques in aesthetic surgery. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2022;4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Papadopoulos MA, Christou PK, Christou PK, Athanasiou AE, Boettcher P, Zeilhofer HF, Three-dimensional craniofacial reconstruction imaging. Oral Surgery, Medicine O et al. Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2002;93(4):382–93. - PubMed
    1. Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton G, Hellings P. Three-Dimensional Surface Imaging and the continuous evolution of Preoperative and Postoperative Assessment in Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. 2016;32(01):088–94. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1570122. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types