Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy and reliability of 2-dimensional photography versus 3-dimensional soft tissue imaging

  • Ayaz, Irem (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Shaheen, Eman (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Aly, Medhat (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Shujaat, Sohaib (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Gallo, Giulia (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Coucke, Wim (Scientific Institute of Public Health, Department of Quality of Medical Laboratories) ;
  • Politis, Constantinus (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven) ;
  • Jacobs, Reinhilde (OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven)
  • Received : 2019.09.18
  • Accepted : 2019.11.20
  • Published : 2020.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to objectively and subjectively compare the accuracy and reliability of 2-dimensional(2D) photography and 3-dimensional(3D) soft tissue imaging. Materials and Methods: Facial images of 50 volunteers(25 males, 25 females) were captured with a Nikon D800 2D camera (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), 3D stereophotogrammetry (SPG), and laser scanning (LS). All subjects were imaged in a relaxed, closed-mouth position with a normal smile. The 2D images were then exported to Mirror® Software (Canfield Scientific, Inc, NJ, USA) and the 3D images into Proplan CMF® software (version 2.1, Materialise HQ, Leuven, Belgium) for further evaluation. For an objective evaluation, 2 observers identified soft tissue landmarks and performed linear measurements on subjects' faces (direct measurements) and both linear and angular measurements on all images(indirect measurements). For a qualitative analysis, 10 dental observers and an expert in facial imaging (subjective gold standard) completed a questionnaire regarding facial characteristics. The reliability of the quantitative data was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients, whereas the Fleiss kappa was calculated for qualitative data. Results: Linear and angular measurements carried out on 2D and 3D images showed excellent inter-observer and intra-observer reliability. The 2D photographs displayed the highest combined total error for linear measurements. SPG performed better than LS, with borderline significance (P=0.052). The qualitative assessment showed no significant differences among the 2D and 3D imaging modalities. Conclusion: SPG was found to a reliable and accurate tool for the morphological evaluation of soft tissue in comparison to 2D imaging and laser scanning.

Keywords

References

  1. Germec-Cakan D, Canter HI, Nur B, Arun T. Comparison of facial soft tissue measurements on three-dimensional images and models obtained with different methods. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21: 1393-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181ec6976
  2. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004; 41: 507-18. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-066.1
  3. Dindaroglu F, Kutlu P, Duran GS, Gorgulu S, Aslan E. Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 487-94. https://doi.org/10.2319/041415-244.1
  4. Andrade LM, Rodrigues da Silva AM, Magri LV, Rodrigues da Silva MA. Repeatability study of angular and linear measurements on facial morphology analysis by means of stereophotogrammetry. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28: 1107-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003554
  5. Su S, Sinha S, Gabriel V. Evaluating accuracy and reliability of active stereophotogrammetry using MAVIS III Wound Camera for three-dimensional assessment of hypertrophic scars. Burns 2017; 43: 1263-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2017.02.018
  6. Farkas LG, Bryson W, Klotz J. Is photogrammetry of the face reliable? Plast Reconstr Surg 1980; 66: 346-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198009000-00004
  7. Aung SC, Ngim RC, Lee ST. Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48: 551-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(95)90043-8
  8. Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 342-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.128219
  9. Da Silveira AC, Martinez O, Da Silveira D, Daw JL Jr, Cohen M. Three-dimensional technology for documentation and record keeping for patients with facial clefts. Clin Plast Surg 2004; 31: 141-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1298(03)00139-1
  10. Ceinos R, Tardivo D, Bertrand MF, Lupi-Pegurier L. Inter- and intra-operator reliability of facial and dental measurements using 3D-stereophotogrammetry. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016; 28: 178-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12194
  11. Baysal A, Sahan AO, Ozturk MA, Uysal T. Reproducibility and reliability of three-dimensional soft tissue landmark identification using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 1004-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/120715-833.1
  12. Lam WY, Hsung RT, Choi WW, Luk HW, Cheng LY, Pow EH. A clinical technique for virtual articulator mounting with natural head position by using calibrated stereophotogrammetry. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 902-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.026
  13. Hassan B, Gimenez Gonzales B, Tahmaseb A, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. Three-dimensional facial scanning technology: applications and future trends. Forum Implantol 2014; 10: 77-86.
  14. Fink M, Medelnik J, Strobel K, Hirschfelder U, Hofmann E. Metric precision via soft-tissue landmarks in three-dimensional structured-light scans of human faces. J Orofac Orthop 2014; 75: 133-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0201-9
  15. Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 342-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.128219
  16. Lincoln KP, Sun AY, Prihoda TJ, Sutton AJ. Comparative accuracy of facial models fabricated using traditional and 3D imaging techniques. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 207-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12358
  17. Ramieri GA, Spada MC, Nasi A, Tavolaccini A, Vezzetti E, Tornincasa S, et al. Reconstruction of facial morphology from laser scanned data. Part I: reliability of the technique. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35: 158-64. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/43516583
  18. Weinberg SM, Naidoo S, Govier DP, Martin RA, Kane AA, Marazita ML. Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17: 477-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200605000-00015
  19. Naini FB, Akram S, Kepinska J, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Validation of a new three-dimensional imaging system using comparative craniofacial anthropometry. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 39: 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-017-0123-3
  20. Borman H, Ozgur F. A simple instrument to define the Frankfurt horizontal plane for soft-tissue measurements of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 580-1. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199808000-00057
  21. Canfiled [Internet]. VECTRA H1 user guide. Parsippany: Canfield; [cited 2019 Apr 23]. Available from: http://canfieldupgrade.com/assets/media/VECTRA-H1-User-Guide.pdf.
  22. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994; 6: 284-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
  23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  24. Zogheib T, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM, Agbaje JO, Anumendem D, Klazen Y, et al. Comparison of 3D scanning versus 2D photography for the identification of facial soft-tissue landmarks. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 61-71. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010061
  25. Metzler P, Sun Y, Zemann W, Bartella A, Lehner M, Obwegeser JA, et al. Validity of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for cranio-maxillofacial anthropometric measurements. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 18: 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-013-0404-7
  26. de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 2129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.09.036
  27. Storms AS, Vansant L, Shaheen E, Coucke W, de Llano-Perula MC, Jacobs R, et al. Three-dimensional aesthetic assessment of class II patients before and after orthognathic surgery and its association with quantitative surgical changes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 1664-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.002
  28. Stebel A, Desmedt D, Bronkhorst E, Kuijpers MA, Fudalej PS. Rating nasolabial appearance on three-dimensional images in cleft lip and palate: a comparison with standard photographs. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38: 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv024
  29. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Bock M, Siebert JP. Three-dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 2002; 17: 318-30.
  30. Tzou CH, Artner NM, Pona I, Hold A, Placheta E, Kropatsch WG, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67: 489-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003

Cited by

  1. A novel fully automatic design approach of a 3D printed face specific mask: Proof of concept vol.15, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243388
  2. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Facial Measurements of Digital Photographs and Wrapped Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Photographs vol.11, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050757
  3. Three-dimensional soft tissue evaluation after rapid maxillary expansion and mandibular midline distraction osteogenesis vol.91, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2319/122120-1023.1
  4. Morphometry and displacement analysis of the upper lips following maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: a 3D morphometric study vol.21, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01838-z