ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Accuracy and Repeatability of Mobile 3D Imaging Applications for Breast Phantom Reconstruction.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone-Based 3D Surface Imaging for Breast Anthropometry, Symmetry Assessment, and Volumetry: A Structured Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond Design: Ergonomic Numerical Evaluation of a Biomimetic Breast Prosthesis for Daily Use.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review of Pre-, Intra-, and Postoperative Applications.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.