Cargando…

Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques

The aim of this study was to identify an efficient approach for 3D imaging of hand. The 3D photographs of hand were taken with Gemini structured-light scanning system (SL scanning) and CT scanning. The 3D photographs, average time of scanning and reconstruction were compared between these two indire...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Fang, Zeng, Lei, Pan, Ding, Sui, Xinlei, Tang, Juyu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68457-6
_version_ 1783560504105500672
author Yu, Fang
Zeng, Lei
Pan, Ding
Sui, Xinlei
Tang, Juyu
author_facet Yu, Fang
Zeng, Lei
Pan, Ding
Sui, Xinlei
Tang, Juyu
author_sort Yu, Fang
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to identify an efficient approach for 3D imaging of hand. The 3D photographs of hand were taken with Gemini structured-light scanning system (SL scanning) and CT scanning. The 3D photographs, average time of scanning and reconstruction were compared between these two indirect techniques. The reliability, reproducibility and accuracy were evaluated in these two indirect techniques and the direct measurement (DM). Statistical differences in the measurements were assessed by 99% probability, with clinical significance at > 0.5 mm. The Gemini structured-light scanning system established a complete and smooth 3D hand photograph with shorter scanning and reconstruction time. Reproducibility of CT scanning and SL scanning methods was better (P < 0.01, both) than the DM, but did not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.462). Of the 19 (31.58%) measurements obtained, 6 showed significant differences (P < 0.01). Significant differences were observed more often for circumference dimensions (5/9, 55.56%) than for length dimensions (1/10, 10%). Mean absolute error (AE) of the 10 subjects was very low for 3D CT (0.29 ± 0.10 mm) and SL scanning (0.30 ± 0.11 mm). Absolute percentage error (APE) was 4.69 ± 2.33% and 4.88 ± 2.22% for 3D CT and SL scanning, respectively. AE for the PIP circumference between the 3rd finger (0.58 mm) and 4th finger (0.53 mm) scan was > 0.5 mm, indicating significant difference between DM and CT scanning at the level of 99% probability. In this study, the Gemini structured-light scanning system not only successfully established a complete and smooth 3D hand photograph, but also shortened the scanning and reconstruction time. Compared to the DM, measurements obtained using the two indirect techniques did not show any statistically or clinically insignificant difference in the values of the remaining 17 of 19 measurements (89.47%). Therefore, either of the two alternative techniques could be used instead of the direct measurement method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7367881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73678812020-07-20 Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques Yu, Fang Zeng, Lei Pan, Ding Sui, Xinlei Tang, Juyu Sci Rep Article The aim of this study was to identify an efficient approach for 3D imaging of hand. The 3D photographs of hand were taken with Gemini structured-light scanning system (SL scanning) and CT scanning. The 3D photographs, average time of scanning and reconstruction were compared between these two indirect techniques. The reliability, reproducibility and accuracy were evaluated in these two indirect techniques and the direct measurement (DM). Statistical differences in the measurements were assessed by 99% probability, with clinical significance at > 0.5 mm. The Gemini structured-light scanning system established a complete and smooth 3D hand photograph with shorter scanning and reconstruction time. Reproducibility of CT scanning and SL scanning methods was better (P < 0.01, both) than the DM, but did not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.462). Of the 19 (31.58%) measurements obtained, 6 showed significant differences (P < 0.01). Significant differences were observed more often for circumference dimensions (5/9, 55.56%) than for length dimensions (1/10, 10%). Mean absolute error (AE) of the 10 subjects was very low for 3D CT (0.29 ± 0.10 mm) and SL scanning (0.30 ± 0.11 mm). Absolute percentage error (APE) was 4.69 ± 2.33% and 4.88 ± 2.22% for 3D CT and SL scanning, respectively. AE for the PIP circumference between the 3rd finger (0.58 mm) and 4th finger (0.53 mm) scan was > 0.5 mm, indicating significant difference between DM and CT scanning at the level of 99% probability. In this study, the Gemini structured-light scanning system not only successfully established a complete and smooth 3D hand photograph, but also shortened the scanning and reconstruction time. Compared to the DM, measurements obtained using the two indirect techniques did not show any statistically or clinically insignificant difference in the values of the remaining 17 of 19 measurements (89.47%). Therefore, either of the two alternative techniques could be used instead of the direct measurement method. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7367881/ /pubmed/32681038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68457-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Yu, Fang
Zeng, Lei
Pan, Ding
Sui, Xinlei
Tang, Juyu
Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title_full Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title_fullStr Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title_short Evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3D scanning techniques
title_sort evaluating the accuracy of hand models obtained from two 3d scanning techniques
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32681038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68457-6
work_keys_str_mv AT yufang evaluatingtheaccuracyofhandmodelsobtainedfromtwo3dscanningtechniques
AT zenglei evaluatingtheaccuracyofhandmodelsobtainedfromtwo3dscanningtechniques
AT panding evaluatingtheaccuracyofhandmodelsobtainedfromtwo3dscanningtechniques
AT suixinlei evaluatingtheaccuracyofhandmodelsobtainedfromtwo3dscanningtechniques
AT tangjuyu evaluatingtheaccuracyofhandmodelsobtainedfromtwo3dscanningtechniques