Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40807762›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Evaluating the Accuracy and Repeatability of Mobile 3D Imaging Applications for Breast Phantom Reconstruction.

Elena Botti, Bart Jansen, Felipe Ballen-Moreno, Ayush Kapila, Redona Brahimetaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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. Review
  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

5 authors.

Elena BottiDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0007-7734-613X
Bart JansenDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8042-6834
Felipe Ballen-MorenoRobotics & Multibody Mechanics (R&MM) Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8260-0100
Ayush KapilaDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Brussels University Hospital (UZ Brussel), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3523-7924
Redona BrahimetajDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9925-1699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional imaging technologies are increasingly used in breast reconstructive and plastic surgery due to their potential for efficient and accurate preoperative assessment and planning. This study systematically evaluates the accuracy and consistency of six commercially available 3D scanning applications (apps)-Structure Sensor, 3D Scanner App, Heges, Polycam, SureScan, and Kiri-in reconstructing the female torso. To avoid variability introduced by human subjects, a silicone breast mannequin model was scanned, with fiducial markers placed at known anatomical landmarks. Manual distance measurements were obtained using calipers by two independent evaluators and compared to digital measurements extracted from 3D reconstructions in Blender software. Each scan was repeated six times per application to ensure reliability. SureScan demonstrated the lowest mean error (2.9 mm), followed by Structure Sensor (3.0 mm), Heges (3.6 mm), 3D Scanner App (4.4 mm), Kiri (5.0 mm), and Polycam (21.4 mm), which showed the highest error and variability. Even the app using an external depth sensor (Structure Sensor) showed no statistically significant accuracy advantage over those using only the iPad's built-in camera (except for Polycam), underscoring that software is the primary driver of performance, not hardware (alone). This work provides practical insights for selecting mobile 3D scanning tools in clinical workflows and highlights key limitations, such as scaling errors and alignment artifacts. Future work should include patient-based validation and explore deep learning to enhance reconstruction quality. Ultimately, this study lays the foundation for more accessible and cost-effective 3D imaging in surgical practice, showing that smartphone-based tools can produce clinically useful scans.

Indexed as

BreastImaging, Three-DimensionalMammaplastyMobile ApplicationsPhantoms, ImagingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSoftware3D imaging technologies3D mesh reconstructionbreast reconstructive surgerymobile 3D scanningplastic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40807762
PMCPMC12349111

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.