Evaluation of the 3D error of 2 face-scanning systems: An in vitro analysis

Statement of problem. Facial scanning systems have been developed as auxiliary tools for diagnosis and planning in dentistry. However, little is known about the trueness of these free software programs and apps for facial scanning.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of 3D facial scanning by using Bellus3D and +ID ReCap Photo.Material and methods. A mannequin head was used as the master model. The control group was created by scanning the mannequin head with a noncontact structured blue light 3D scanner (ATOS Core). Two facial scanning methods were used for the experimental groups: a facial scanning app (FaceApp) and the Plus identity photogrammetry methodology (ReCap Photo). In both methods, image capturing was performed under the same natural lighting conditions with a smartphone (iPhone X) calibrated with an app. Trueness was assessed from the 3D measurement error, which was calculated with a 3D mesh analysis software program (GOM Inspect). Two comparison groups were created: ATOS versus Bellus3D (B3D) and ATOS versus +ID with ReCap Photo (+IDRP). The results were statistically evaluated by using the Shapiro-Wilk and paired t tests (a=.05).Results. B3D had a greater error than +IDRP in measuring the regions of the upper and lower lips, nose, and mentum (P<.01). This error was statistically higher for +IDRP (P<.01) in the right face area, but the left face area showed no statistically significant difference between the evaluated scanning methods (P=.93). The 3D global trueness of B3D was 0.34 +/- 0.14 mm, and that of +IDRP was 0.28 +/- 0.06 mm. Conclusions. Both methods evaluated in this study provided a 3D model of the face with clinically acceptable trueness and should be reliable tools for planning esthetic restorations. (J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:630-6)

Automated summary

This study evaluated the trueness of 3D facial scanning using Bellus3D and +ID ReCap Photo. The results showed that both methods had significant measurement errors in certain facial regions. However, overall, both methods provided clinically acceptable trueness and can be reliable tools for planning esthetic restorations.