ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Accuracy of Three-dimensional Scan Technology and Its Possible Function in the Field of Hand Surgery.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-time photoacoustic imaging with freehand light delivery and augmented reality guidance.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- 3D Geometry Scanning and Structural Integrity Assessment to Advance Meniscus Allograft Transplantation.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Automated CT dataset generation as a novel concept for verification of backshape-to-spine approach and Cobb Angle Estimation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Molecular cytokine-dependent mechanisms of periodontitis pathogenesis and the potential for pharmacological IL-1 modulation in disease treatment.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Teledermatology to Support Self-Care in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.JMIR dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) technology has become a standard manufacturing element in many industries and has gained significant interest in plastic surgery. The 3D scans are widely used for patient communication, virtual surgery planning, and intraoperative tool manufacturing, providing a more comprehensive view of procedures and their outcomes compared with 2D visualization. Methods: We evaluated the performance of six commercially available 3D scanners by acquiring 3D models of a human hand and a 3D-printed replica of a human hand. We performed objective comparisons between the 3D models of the replica using color mapping techniques. Moreover, we compared the results of the human hand 3D scans. Results: We achieved the highest precision with the Artec Space Spider 3D scanner (Artec 3D) when scanning the 3D-printed replica. The SD was ±0.05 mm, and the scan did not have major defects that needed manual correction. On the human hand scan, we achieved the best results using the Artec Eva (Artec 3D), the resulting scan was an accurate digital representation of the scanned human hand. Conclusions: In our study, the Artec Space Spider 3D scanner demonstrated superior precision when scanning a 3D-printed replica, deviating only slightly from the original data, making it an optimal choice for nonmoving objects such as casts or medical instruments. For scanning human hands, the Artec Eva 3D scanner exhibited the highest performance, offering accuracy comparable to the Artec Space Spider, but with the added benefit of being able to scan larger objects.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.