Cargando…

Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices

PURPOSE: To compare a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other cost-effective 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanning systems to objectively characterize morphology and volume of periorbital and adnexal anatomy. METHODS: The imaging systems evaluated include the low-cost custom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: To, Josiah K., Vu, Anderson N., Ediriwickrema, Lilangi S., Browne, Andrew W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.16.23288631
_version_ 1785035903839764480
author To, Josiah K.
Vu, Anderson N.
Ediriwickrema, Lilangi S.
Browne, Andrew W.
author_facet To, Josiah K.
Vu, Anderson N.
Ediriwickrema, Lilangi S.
Browne, Andrew W.
author_sort To, Josiah K.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other cost-effective 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanning systems to objectively characterize morphology and volume of periorbital and adnexal anatomy. METHODS: The imaging systems evaluated include the low-cost custom PHACE system and commercial software product for the iPhone called Scandy Pro (iScandy) application (Scandy, USA), and the mid-priced Einscan Pro 2X (Shining3D Technologies, China) device and Array of Reconstructed Cameras 7 (ARC7) facial scanner (Bellus3D, USA). Imaging was performed on a manikin facemask and humans with various Fitzpatrick scores. Scanner attributes were assessed using mesh density, reproducibility, surface deviation, and emulation of 3D printed phantom lesions affixed above the superciliary arch (brow line). RESULTS: The Einscan served as a reference for lower cost imaging systems because it qualitatively and quantitatively renders facial morphology with the highest mesh density, reproducibility (0.13 ± 0.10 mm), and volume recapitulation (approximately 2% of 33.5 μL). Compared to the Einscan, the PHACE system (0.35 ± 0.03 mm, 0.33 ± 0.16 mm) demonstrated non-inferior mean accuracy and reproducibility root mean square (RMS) compared to the iScandy (0.42 ± 0.13 mm, 0.58 ± 0.09 mm), and significantly more expensive ARC7 (0.42 ± 0.03 mm, 0.26 ± 0.09 mm). Similarly, the PHACE system showed non-inferior volumetric modeling when rendering a 124 μL phantom lesion compared to the iScandy and more costly ARC7 (mean percent difference from the Einscan: 4.68 ± 3.73%, 9.09 ± 0.94%, and 21.99 ± 17.91% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The affordable PHACE system accurately measures periorbital soft tissue as well as other established mid-cost facial scanning systems. Additionally, the portability, affordability, and adaptability of PHACE can facilitate widespread adoption of 3D facial anthropometric technology as an objective measurement tool in ophthalmology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10153299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101532992023-05-03 Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices To, Josiah K. Vu, Anderson N. Ediriwickrema, Lilangi S. Browne, Andrew W. medRxiv Article PURPOSE: To compare a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other cost-effective 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanning systems to objectively characterize morphology and volume of periorbital and adnexal anatomy. METHODS: The imaging systems evaluated include the low-cost custom PHACE system and commercial software product for the iPhone called Scandy Pro (iScandy) application (Scandy, USA), and the mid-priced Einscan Pro 2X (Shining3D Technologies, China) device and Array of Reconstructed Cameras 7 (ARC7) facial scanner (Bellus3D, USA). Imaging was performed on a manikin facemask and humans with various Fitzpatrick scores. Scanner attributes were assessed using mesh density, reproducibility, surface deviation, and emulation of 3D printed phantom lesions affixed above the superciliary arch (brow line). RESULTS: The Einscan served as a reference for lower cost imaging systems because it qualitatively and quantitatively renders facial morphology with the highest mesh density, reproducibility (0.13 ± 0.10 mm), and volume recapitulation (approximately 2% of 33.5 μL). Compared to the Einscan, the PHACE system (0.35 ± 0.03 mm, 0.33 ± 0.16 mm) demonstrated non-inferior mean accuracy and reproducibility root mean square (RMS) compared to the iScandy (0.42 ± 0.13 mm, 0.58 ± 0.09 mm), and significantly more expensive ARC7 (0.42 ± 0.03 mm, 0.26 ± 0.09 mm). Similarly, the PHACE system showed non-inferior volumetric modeling when rendering a 124 μL phantom lesion compared to the iScandy and more costly ARC7 (mean percent difference from the Einscan: 4.68 ± 3.73%, 9.09 ± 0.94%, and 21.99 ± 17.91% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The affordable PHACE system accurately measures periorbital soft tissue as well as other established mid-cost facial scanning systems. Additionally, the portability, affordability, and adaptability of PHACE can facilitate widespread adoption of 3D facial anthropometric technology as an objective measurement tool in ophthalmology. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10153299/ /pubmed/37131657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.16.23288631 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , which allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
spellingShingle Article
To, Josiah K.
Vu, Anderson N.
Ediriwickrema, Lilangi S.
Browne, Andrew W.
Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title_full Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title_fullStr Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title_short Comparison of a custom Photogrammetry for Anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other Low- Cost Facial Scanning Devices
title_sort comparison of a custom photogrammetry for anatomical care (phace) system with other low- cost facial scanning devices
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131657
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.16.23288631
work_keys_str_mv AT tojosiahk comparisonofacustomphotogrammetryforanatomicalcarephacesystemwithotherlowcostfacialscanningdevices
AT vuandersonn comparisonofacustomphotogrammetryforanatomicalcarephacesystemwithotherlowcostfacialscanningdevices
AT ediriwickremalilangis comparisonofacustomphotogrammetryforanatomicalcarephacesystemwithotherlowcostfacialscanningdevices
AT browneandreww comparisonofacustomphotogrammetryforanatomicalcarephacesystemwithotherlowcostfacialscanningdevices