File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Smartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study

TitleSmartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study
Authors
Keywords3D
3D surface-imaging
3dMD
Bellus3D
Cleft
Direct anthropometry
Oronasal
Smartphone
Issue Date1-Dec-2024
PublisherBioMed Central
Citation
BMC Oral Health, 2024, v. 24, n. 1 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To evaluate the validity and reliability of smartphone-generated three-dimensional (3D) facial images for routine evaluation of the oronasal region of patients with cleft by comparing their accuracy to that of direct anthropometry (DA) and 3dMD. Materials and methods: Eighteen soft-tissue facial landmarks were manually labelled on each of the 17 (9 males and 8 females; mean age 23.3 ± 5.4 years) cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients’ faces. Two surface imaging systems, 3dMDface and Bellus3D FaceApp, were used to perform two imaging operations on each labelled face. Subsequently, 32 inter-landmark facial measurements were directly measured on the labelled faces and digitally measured on the 3D facial images. Statistical comparisons were made between smartphone-generated 3D facial images (SGI), DA, and 3dMD measurements. Results: The SGI measurements were slightly higher than those from DA and 3dMD, but the mean differences between inter-landmark measurements were not statistically significant across all three methods. In terms of clinical acceptability, 16% and 59% of measures showed differences of ≤ 3 mm or ≤ 5º, with good agreement between DA and SGI and 3dMD and SGI, respectively. A small systematic bias of ± 0.2 mm was observed generally among the three methods. Additionally, the mean absolute difference between the DA and SGI methods was the highest for linear measurements (1.31 ± 0.34 mm) and angular measurements (4.11 ± 0.76º). Conclusions: SGI displayed fair trueness compared to DA and 3dMD. It exhibited high accuracy in the orolabial area and specific central and flat areas within the oronasal region. Notwithstanding this, it has limited clinical applicability for assessing the entire oronasal region of patients with CLP. From a clinical application perspective, SGI should accurately encompass the entire oronasal region for optimal clinical use. Clinical relevance: SGI can be considered for macroscopic oronasal analysis or for patient education where accuracy within 3 mm and 5º may not be critical.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/362438

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSingh, Pradeep-
dc.contributor.authorHsung, Richard Tai‑Chiu-
dc.contributor.authorAjmera, Deepal Haresh-
dc.contributor.authorSaid, Noha A.-
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Yiu Yan-
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, Colman-
dc.contributor.authorGu, Min-
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-24T00:51:33Z-
dc.date.available2025-09-24T00:51:33Z-
dc.date.issued2024-12-01-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Oral Health, 2024, v. 24, n. 1-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/362438-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the validity and reliability of smartphone-generated three-dimensional (3D) facial images for routine evaluation of the oronasal region of patients with cleft by comparing their accuracy to that of direct anthropometry (DA) and 3dMD. Materials and methods: Eighteen soft-tissue facial landmarks were manually labelled on each of the 17 (9 males and 8 females; mean age 23.3 ± 5.4 years) cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients’ faces. Two surface imaging systems, 3dMDface and Bellus3D FaceApp, were used to perform two imaging operations on each labelled face. Subsequently, 32 inter-landmark facial measurements were directly measured on the labelled faces and digitally measured on the 3D facial images. Statistical comparisons were made between smartphone-generated 3D facial images (SGI), DA, and 3dMD measurements. Results: The SGI measurements were slightly higher than those from DA and 3dMD, but the mean differences between inter-landmark measurements were not statistically significant across all three methods. In terms of clinical acceptability, 16% and 59% of measures showed differences of ≤ 3 mm or ≤ 5º, with good agreement between DA and SGI and 3dMD and SGI, respectively. A small systematic bias of ± 0.2 mm was observed generally among the three methods. Additionally, the mean absolute difference between the DA and SGI methods was the highest for linear measurements (1.31 ± 0.34 mm) and angular measurements (4.11 ± 0.76º). Conclusions: SGI displayed fair trueness compared to DA and 3dMD. It exhibited high accuracy in the orolabial area and specific central and flat areas within the oronasal region. Notwithstanding this, it has limited clinical applicability for assessing the entire oronasal region of patients with CLP. From a clinical application perspective, SGI should accurately encompass the entire oronasal region for optimal clinical use. Clinical relevance: SGI can be considered for macroscopic oronasal analysis or for patient education where accuracy within 3 mm and 5º may not be critical.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Oral Health-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subject3D-
dc.subject3D surface-imaging-
dc.subject3dMD-
dc.subjectBellus3D-
dc.subjectCleft-
dc.subjectDirect anthropometry-
dc.subjectOronasal-
dc.subjectSmartphone-
dc.titleSmartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12903-024-05280-9-
dc.identifier.pmid39702086-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85212671746-
dc.identifier.volume24-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.eissn1472-6831-
dc.identifier.issnl1472-6831-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats