2018
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjx227
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-Dimensional Imaging of the Face: A Comparison Between Three Different Imaging Modalities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
69
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
69
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For this purpose, a comprehensive 3D nasal photogrammetric analysis was performed, based on prior studies that reported nasal growth in a normal healthy population and evaluated different endpoints in cleft lip and nose repair [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,43,48,49,50,51]. Our excellent intra-and inter-evaluator reliability scores support the rigorous validation process previously performed for the 3D photogrammetric system [45,46]. As the same reference planes and parameter definitions were consistently used for all measurements, it was expected that intrinsic errors associated with the 3D system would have been similar in all included subjects, with no or minimum interference with the intragroup and intergroup comparisons.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For this purpose, a comprehensive 3D nasal photogrammetric analysis was performed, based on prior studies that reported nasal growth in a normal healthy population and evaluated different endpoints in cleft lip and nose repair [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,43,48,49,50,51]. Our excellent intra-and inter-evaluator reliability scores support the rigorous validation process previously performed for the 3D photogrammetric system [45,46]. As the same reference planes and parameter definitions were consistently used for all measurements, it was expected that intrinsic errors associated with the 3D system would have been similar in all included subjects, with no or minimum interference with the intragroup and intergroup comparisons.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The system was calibrated before every capture process. Data sets were analyzed using 3dMD Vultus software (version 2.2, 3dMD Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA), with previously verified accuracy and reliability [45,46].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasons for comparing Structure Sensor with Vectra M5 scanner and Artec Eva 3D scanner are based on the already validated use of these devices. In particular, Vectra technology has been used to capture face, neck, breast and body (13) while the clinical use of Artec Eva 3D has been described for the surface assessment of face, torso, upper and lower extremity (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). All three scanning processes showed consistent results also in comparison with the CT scanning, with only one exception, further demonstrating their accuracy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Dreiundneunzig Prozent der Patientinnen gaben an, dass die 3D-Simulation ihnen bei der Größenwahl ihres Brustimplantates geholfen habe [26]. In einer aktuellen Studie zum 3D-Imaging des Gesichts unter Verwendung dreier unterschiedlicher Systeme konnte diesem Verfahren, unabhängig vom System, eine hohe Reproduzierbarkeit in der 3D-Oberflächenrekonstruktion nachgewiesen werden [27]. Ähnliche Ergebnisse konnten auch Koban et al 2019 bei der Untersuchung drei verschiedener Systeme zur Dokumentation und Planung einer Rhinoplastik herausfinden [28].…”
Section: Exploratives Erweitertes Modellunclassified