Different three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry systems and analyzing methods exist that often use landmarks for comparison. Measurement errors in landmark or surface comparison are mostly within 1 mm, which seems clinically acceptable. The aim of this study was to validate a three-dimensional stereophotogrammetric best-fit method of assessing volumetric changes and to compare three devices.
Methods
The validation of the best-fit method was at first done on a life-size dummy head. Scans were made in the ideal position, as well as in four additional positions, and a scan was made in which a soft putty specimen was added to the dummy head. The comparison was executed with a best-fit method using triangulation. Student's t tests were used to detect statistically significant differences. Second, comparisons were made among scans of a white man in the ideal position and with volume changes added.
Results
The different positions tested for the dummy head showed no significant volume differences within each system or among systems. The differences found when adding a soft putty specimen fell into the same range as the differences between various positions. The differences within a live situation were 10 times greater compared with the dummy-head situation.
Conclusions
In a dummy-head situation, the different systems gave similar results when tested with a best-fit method. However, in live situations the differences may become 10 times greater, possibly due to different facial expressions. These differences may become clinically relevant and, therefore, further research in volumetric changes is needed.
AldridgeK.BoyadjievS.A.CaponeG.T.DeLeonV.B.RichtsmeierJ.T.Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A.2005; 138A: 247–253.
2.
AyoubA.GarrahyA.HoodC.WhiteJ.BockM.SiebertJ.P.SpencerR.RayA.Validation of a vision-based, three-dimensional facial imaging system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003; 40: 523–529.
3.
AyoubA.F.WrayD.MoosK.F.SiebertP.JinJ.NiblettT.B.UrquhartC.MowforthR.Three-dimensional modeling for modern diagnosis and planning in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg.1996; 11: 225–233.
4.
BerkowitzS.CuzziJ.Biostereometric analysis of surgically corrected abnormal faces. Am J Orthod.1977; 72: 526–538.
5.
BurkeP.H.Hughes-LawsonC.A.Stereophotogrammetric study of growth and development of the nose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1989; 96: 144–151.
6.
BushK.AntonyshynO.Three-dimensional facial anthropometry using a laser surface scanner: validation of the technique. Plast Reconstr Surg.1996; 98: 226–235.
7.
CuttingC.B.McCarthyJ.G.KarronD.B.Three-dimensional input of body surface data using a laser light scanner. Ann Plast Surg.1988; 21: 38–45.
8.
FarkasL.G.Anthropometry of the Head and Face.New York: Raven Press;1994.
9.
FarkasL.G.HajnisK.PosnickJ.C.Anthropometric and anthroposcopic findings of the nasal and facial region in cleft patients before and after primary lip and palate repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993; 30: 1–12.
10.
FerrarioV.F.MianF.PerettaR.RosatiR.SforzaC.Three-dimensional computerized anthropometry of the nose: landmark representation compared to surface analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2007; 44: 278–285.
11.
FerrarioV.F.SforzaC.PoggioC.E.CovaM.TartagliaG.Preliminary evaluation of an electromagnetic three-dimensional digitizer in facial anthropometry. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1998; 35: 9–15.
12.
FerrarioV.F.SforzaC.SerraoG.MianiAJr. A computerized non-invasive method for the assessment of human facial volume. J Craniomaxillofac Surg.1995; 23: 280–286.
13.
GhoddousiH.EdlerR.HaersP.WertheimD.GreenhillD.Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2007; 36: 250–258.
14.
GuyotL.DubucM.RichardO.PhilipN.DutourO.Comparison between direct clinical and digital photogrammetric measurements in patients with 22q11 microdeletion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2003; 32: 246–252.
15.
GwilliamJ.R.CunninghamS.J.HuttonT.Reproducibility of soft tissue landmarks on three-dimensional facial scans. Eur J Orthod.2006; 28: 408–415.
16.
HajeerM.Y.MaoZ.MillettD.T.AyoubA.F.SiebertJ.P.A new three-dimensional method of assessing facial volumetric changes after orthognathic treatment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 113–120.
17.
HajeerM.Y.MillettD.T.AyoubA.F.SiebertJ.P.Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part II. J Orthod.2004; 31: 154–162.
18.
HolbergC.SchwenzerK.MahainiL.Rudzki-JansonI.Accuracy of facial plaster casts. Angle Orthod.2006; 76: 605–611.
19.
KauC.H.RichmondS.ZhurovA.I.KnoxJ.ChestnuttI.HartlesF.PlayleR.Reliability of measuring facial morphology with a 3-dimensional laser scanning system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2005; 128: 424–430.
20.
KauC.H.ZhurovA.RichmondS.CroninA.SavioC.MallorieC.Facial templates: a new perspective in three dimensions. Orthod Craniofac Res.2006; 9: 10–17.
21.
LittlefieldT.R.CherneyJ.C.LuisiJ.N.BealsS.P.KellyK.M.PomattoJ.K.Comparison of plaster casting with three-dimensional cranial imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 157–164.
22.
LoweyM.N.The development of a new method of cephalometric and study cast mensuration with a computer controlled, video image capture system. Part II: study cast mensuration. Br J Orthod.1993; 20: 315–331.
23.
LubbersH.T.MedingerL.KruseA.GratzK.W.MatthewsF.Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application. J Craniofac Surg.2010; 21: 763–767.
24.
MaalT.J.VerhammeL.M.van LoonB.PlooijJ.M.RangelF.A.KhoA.BronkhorstE.M.BergeS.J.Variation of the face in rest using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2011. In press.
25.
MetzgerM.C.Hohlweg-MajertB.SchonR.TeschnerM.GellrichN.C.SchmelzeisenR.GutwaldR.Verification of clinical precision after computer-aided reconstruction in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2007; 104: e1–e10.
26.
MishimaK.SugaharaT.MoriY.SakudaM.Application of a new method for anthropometric analysis of the nose. Plast Reconstr Surg.1996; 98: 637–644.
27.
MorrantD.G.ShawW.C.Use of standardized video recordings to assess cleft surgery outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 134–142.
28.
MossJ.P.McCanceA.M.FrightW.R.LinneyA.D.JamesD.R.A three-dimensional soft tissue analysis of fifteen patients with class II, division 1 malocclusions after bimaxillary surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1994; 105: 430–437.
29.
PeytonWTRH. Quantitative studies on congenital clefts of the lip. Arch Surg.1936; 33: 1026–1035.
30.
PlooijJ.M.SwennenG.R.RangelF.A.MaalT.J.SchutyserF.A.BronkhorstE.M.Kuijpers-JagtmanA.M.BergeS.J.Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2009; 38: 267–273.
31.
RasF.HabetsL.L.van GinkelF.C.Prahl-AndersenB.Method for quantifying facial asymmetry in three dimensions using stereophotogrammetry. Angle Orthod.1995; 65: 233–239.
32.
RasF.HabetsL.L.van GinkelF.C.Prahl-AndersenB.Quantification of facial morphology using stereophotogrammetry—demonstration of a new concept. J Dent.1996; 24: 369–374.
33.
RiphagenJ.M.van NeckJ.W.van AdrichemL.N.3D surface imaging in medicine: a review of working principles and implications for imaging the unsedated child. J Craniofac Surg.2008; 19: 517–524.
34.
SforzaC.DellaviaC.ColomboA.SerraoG.FerrarioV.F.Nasal dimensions in normal subjects: conventional anthropometry versus computerized anthropometry. Am J Med Genet A.2004; 130A: 228–233.
35.
VegterF.HageJ.J.Facial anthropometry in cleft patients: a historical appraisal. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2001; 38: 577–581.
36.
WeinbergS.M.NaidooS.GovierD.P.MartinR.A.KaneA.A.MarazitaM.L.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: 477–483.
37.
WhiteJ.E.AyoubA.F.HoseyM.T.BockM.BowmanA.BowmanJ.SiebertJ.P.RayA.Three-dimensional facial characteristics of Caucasian infants without cleft and correlation with body measurements. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004; 41: 593–602.
38.
WinderR.J.DarvannT.A.McKnightW.MageeJ.D.Ramsay-BaggsP.Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2008; 46: 33–37.
