Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585546›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2024

Comparative evaluation of Artec Leo hand-held scanner and iPad Pro for 3D scanning of cervical and craniofacial data: assessing precision, accuracy, and user experience.

Samuel D J Spears, Thomas Lester, Ryo Torii, Deepak M Kalaskar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samuel D J SpearsDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, NW3 2PF, United Kingdom. samuel.spears.20@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6355-3997
Thomas LesterDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, NW3 2PF, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4992-9417
Ryo ToriiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9479-8719
Deepak M KalaskarDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, NW3 2PF, United Kingdom. d.kalaskar@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0576-1816

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study compares the precision, accuracy, and user experience of 3D body surface scanning of human subjects using the Artec Leo hand-held scanner and the iPad Pro as 3D scanning devices for capturing cervical and craniofacial data. The investigation includes assessing methods for correcting 'dropped head syndrome' during scanning, to demonstrate the ability of the scanner to be used to reconstruct body surface of patients.

methodsEighteen volunteers with no prior history of neck weakness were scanned three times in three different positions, using the two different devices. Surface area, scanning time, and participant comfort scores were evaluated for both devices. Precision and accuracy were assessed using Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC).

resultsSurface area comparisons revealed no significant differences between devices and positions. Scanning times showed no significant difference between devices or positions. Comfort scores varied across positions. MAD analysis identified chin to chest measurements as having the highest variance, especially in scanning position 3. However, no statistical differences were found. MAPE results confirmed accuracy below 5% error for both devices. ICC scores indicated good reliability for both measurement methods, particularly for chin to chest measurements in positions 1 and 3.

conclusionThe iPad Pro using the Qlone app demonstrates a viable alternative to the Artec Leo, particularly for capturing head and neck surface area within a clinical setting. The scanning resolution, with an error margin within ±5%, is consistent with clinically accepted standards for orthosis design, where padding and final fit adjustments allow for bespoke devices that accommodate patient comfort. This study highlights the comparative performance of the iPad, as well as suggests two methods which can be used within clinics to correct head drop for scanning.

Indexed as

3D design3D scanningDropped head syndromeMNDScanning accuracyScanning comfort

Identifiers

PMID39585546
PMCPMC11587624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.