Two-dimensional photographs are the standard for assessing craniofacial surgery clinical outcomes despite lacking three-dimensional (3D) depth and shape. Therefore, 3D scanners have been gaining popularity in various fields of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including craniomaxillofacial surgery.Head shapes of eight adult volunteers were acquired using four 3D scanners: 1.5T Avanto MRI, Siemens; 3dMDface System, 3dMD Inc.; M4D Scan, Rodin4D; and Structure Sensor, Occipital Inc. Accuracy was evaluated as percentage of data within a range of 2 mm from the 3DMDface System reconstruction, by surface-to-surface root mean square (RMS) distances, and with facial distance maps. Precision was determined by RMS.Relative to the 3dMDface System, accuracy was the highest for M4D Scan (90% within 2 mm; RMS of 0.71 mm ± 0.28 mm), followed by Avanto MRI (86%; 1.11 mm ± 0.33 mm) and Structure Sensor (80%; 1.33 mm ± 0.46). M4D Scan and Structure Sensor precision were 0.50 ± 0.04 mm and 0.51 ± 0.03 mm, respectively.Clinical and technical requirements govern scanner choice; however, 3dMDface System and M4D Scan provide high-quality results. It is foreseeable that compact, handheld systems will become more popular in the near future.

Additional Metadata
Keywords 3D photography, 3D surface scanning, Craniofacial surgery, Maxillofacial surgery, Plastic surgery
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015, hdl.handle.net/1765/95810
Journal Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
Citation
Knoops, P.G.M. (Paul G.M.), Beaumont, C.A.A. (Caroline A.A.), Borghi, A. (Alessandro), Rodriguez-Florez, N. (Naiara), Breakey, R.W.F. (Richard W.F.), Rodgers, W. (William), … Dunaway, D.J. (2017). Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 70(4), 441–449. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.015