目的:将智能手机生成的三维(3D)面部图像的准确性与直接人体测量法(DA)和3dMD的准确性进行比较,目的是评估智能手机生成的3D面部图像在常规临床应用中的有效性和可靠性。
方法:对22例正颌手术患者(男性11例,女性11例;平均年龄26.2±5.3岁),手动标记了25个人体测量软组织面部标志。对于每个标记的面孔,使用两种不同的表面成像系统:3dMDface和Bellus3DFaceApp进行两种成像操作。接下来,在所识别的面部标志中的42个标志间面部测量直接在每个标记的面部上并且还在3D面部图像上数字地测量。从智能手机生成的3D面部图像(SGI)获得的测量结果与DA和3dMD的测量结果进行了统计比较。
结果:SGI的测量值略高于DA和3dMD,但三种方法的界标间测量值平均值之间无统计学差异.在DA和SGI之间观察到67%和74%的测量结果具有临床可接受的差异(≤3mm或≤5°),3dMD和SGI,分别。在三种方法之间观察到±0.2mm的总体小系统偏差。此外,对于线性(1.41±0.33mm)和角度测量(3.07±0.73°),DA和SGI方法的平均绝对差异最高.
结论:与DA和3dMD相比,SGI显示出相当的真实性。SGI中面部的中心区域和平坦区域更准确。尽管如此,SGI的临床应用有限,从临床应用的角度来看,SGI的全面准确性将是更理想的。
结论:SGI在临床实践中用于涉及面部中央和平坦区域的特定区域宏观比例面部评估或用于患者教育目的,这不需要精度在3毫米和5°可以考虑。
To compare the accuracy of smartphone-generated three-dimensional (3D) facial images to that of direct anthropometry (DA) and
3dMD with the aim of assessing the validity and reliability of smartphone-generated 3D facial images for routine clinical applications.
Twenty-five anthropometric soft-tissue facial landmarks were labelled manually on 22 orthognathic surgery patients (11 males and 11 females; mean age 26.2 ± 5.3 years). For each labelled face, two imaging operations were performed using two different surface imaging systems: 3dMDface and Bellus3D FaceApp. Next, 42 inter-landmark facial measurements amongst the identified facial landmarks were measured directly on each labelled face and also digitally on 3D facial images. The measurements obtained from smartphone-generated 3D facial images (SGI) were statistically compared with those from DA and
3dMD.
SGI had slightly higher measurement values than DA and
3dMD, but there was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of inter-landmark measures across the three methods. Clinically acceptable differences (≤3 mm or ≤5°) were observed for 67 % and 74 % of measurements with good agreement between DA and SGI, and
3dMD and SGI, respectively. An overall small systematic bias of ± 0.2 mm was observed between the three methods. Furthermore, the mean absolute difference between DA and SGI methods was highest for linear (1.41 ± 0.33 mm) as well as angular measurements (3.07 ± 0.73°).
SGI demonstrated fair trueness compared to DA and
3dMD. The central region and flat areas of the face in SGI are more accurate. Despite this, SGI have limited clinical application, and the panfacial accuracy of the SGI would be more desirable from a clinical application standpoint.
The usage of SGI in clinical practice for region-specific macro-proportional facial assessment involving central and flat regions of the face or for patient education purposes, which does not require accuracy within 3 mm and 5° can be considered.