ArticlePloS one2025
The accuracy of three-dimensional facial scan obtained from three different 3d scanners.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of Facial Assessment in Aesthetic Medicine: 3D Imaging, Digital Analysis, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Validation of Consumer-Grade 3D Scanners for Clinical Facial Reconstruction: Comparison with a Professional Structured-Light Reference System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accuracy of seven three-dimensional facial scanning systems compared with cone-beam computed tomography: a pilot study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Masseter Muscle Morphometric Changes After Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection: A Prospective 3-Month Study.Toxins · 2026Observational
- Review
- Smartphone photogrammetry for prosthetics and orthotics: accuracy and reliability across upper-limb, lower-limb, and AFO casts.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Restylane Lyft for Nonsurgical Full Nose Correction in Chinese Patients: A Retrospective 3-Dimensional Imaging-Based Cohort Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Trueness and Precision in Extraoral 3D Facial Scanning Systems Using a 3D-Printed Head Model: An In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) and reproducibility of three 3D facial scanning systems: a laser scanner (Planmeca Proface), a dual-structured light scanner (EinScan H2), and a smartphone application (EM3D Scanner). Thirty subjects with skeletal deformities scheduled for orthognathic surgery were scanned using these systems, and the resulting 90 3D facial scans were compared with facial surfaces segmented from CBCT scans. Surface discrepancies were measured using root mean square (RMS) values across five facial aesthetic areas (cheeks, nasal, perioral, and mental units) through Geomagic Control X software. The EM3D Scanner showed significantly better trueness and precision compared to the EinScan H2, particularly for the overall face (p < 0.01). Planmeca Proface showed no significant difference from the other scanners in terms of error. The nasal and perioral regions, scanned with Planmeca Proface, achieved the highest accuracy compared to other areas, while the left cheek demonstrated the lowest accuracy. Up to 80% of the scanned areas were classified as reproducible, falling within acceptable tolerance limits. Overall, trueness values ranged from 0.70 to 0.85 mm, and precision ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 mm, with deviations of less than 1.0 mm deemed highly acceptable for clinical applications. Surface regions closer to the midline were found to have higher accuracy than those on the sides of the face. These findings highlight the potential of EM3D Scanner and Planmeca Proface for accurate and reliable facial scanning, particularly in clinical settings where minimal deviation is crucial.
Indexed as
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.