ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Validation of Consumer-Grade 3D Scanners for Clinical Facial Reconstruction: Comparison with a Professional Structured-Light Reference System.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional facial scanning is an important tool in reconstructive surgery and burn medicine for objective documentation, treatment planning, and fabrication of patient-specific devices. While professional structured-light scanners provide high geometric accuracy, their cost limits routine implementation. Several low-cost consumer-grade alternatives are available; however, their accuracy for clinically relevant facial applications remains insufficiently validated. Thirty volunteers were initially recruited for facial scanning. Two participants withdrew from further scanning for personal reasons, resulting in a main study cohort of 28 participants. Complete datasets from all 28 participants were available for Artec Eva, Revopoint MIRACO, and Creality CR-Scan 01, whereas 22 Kiri Engine datasets met the predefined quality criteria for smartphone photogrammetry analysis. Facial scans acquired using Revopoint MIRACO, Creality CR-Scan 01, and Kiri Engine were compared with a professional structured-light scanner (Artec Eva) used as the reference system. Six clinically relevant inter-landmark distances were analysed together with global surface deviation relative to Artec Eva reference using Cloud-to-Mesh analysis. Agreement was evaluated using mean signed differences, mean absolute error (MAE), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and post-hoc statistical testing. Both MIRACO and CR-Scan demonstrated favourable geometric agreement with the Artec Eva reference. Global surface RMSE relative to Artec Eva reference was 0.72 ± 0.24 mm for MIRACO and 0.57 ± 0.17 mm for CR-Scan, compared with 1.41 ± 0.58 mm for Kiri Engine. More than 90% of facial surface points were within 1 mm of the reference model for MIRACO (91 ± 8%) and CR-Scan (93 ± 7%), whereas Kiri Engine achieved 68 ± 16%. Pooled ICC values ranged from 0.998 to 0.999 across the evaluated systems. Pairwise comparisons showed no significant difference between MIRACO and CR-Scan (
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.