Dataset Information

Scan time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements using a 3D light scanner.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To evaluate time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements with a 3D light scanner, considering prior demarcation of surface points on the face.

Materials and methods

Eleven facial measurements of 15 volunteers were obtained by a scanner (Artec Eva TM) and by a caliper directly on the face, with or without demarcation of facial reference points. Inter and intra-method comparison were examined by intraclass correlation coefficient and analysis of random error by the Dahlberg formula. Agreement between the methods was analyzed by the Bland-Altman. A Wilcoxon test was used to compare the time for each method, at p?ResultsMarking points on the face improved accuracy for both methods. In the inter-methods analysis with landmarks, the scanner showed excellent reliability in all measures (ICC?=?0.92-0.97, p?ConclusionsCraniofacial measurements obtained with scanner showed excellent reliability and accuracy, which qualifies this method for clinical and scientific use. Accuracy is improved when the points were previously marked on face. However, the time needed to obtain measurements is greater than about 4?min for the direct method.

SUBMITTER: Franco de Sa Gomes C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6669702 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scan time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements using a 3D light scanner.

Franco de Sá Gomes Camilla C Libdy Mylena Ranieri MR Normando David D

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research 20190707 4

<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements with a 3D light scanner, considering prior demarcation of surface points on the face.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Eleven facial measurements of 15 volunteers were obtained by a scanner (Artec Eva TM) and by a caliper directly on the face, with or without demarcation of facial reference points. Inter and intra-method comparison were examined by intraclass correlation coefficient and analysis of random error by th ...[more]

PMID: 31388482

Similar Datasets

Project description:Automated MRI-derived measurements of in-vivo human brain volumes provide novel insights into normal and abnormal neuroanatomy, but little is known about measurement reliability. Here we assess the impact of image acquisition variables (scan session, MRI sequence, scanner upgrade, vendor and field strengths), FreeSurfer segmentation pre-processing variables (image averaging, B1 field inhomogeneity correction) and segmentation analysis variables (probabilistic atlas) on resultant image segmentation volumes from older (n=15, mean age 69.5) and younger (both n=5, mean ages 34 and 36.5) healthy subjects. The variability between hippocampal, thalamic, caudate, putamen, lateral ventricular and total intracranial volume measures across sessions on the same scanner on different days is less than 4.3% for the older group and less than 2.3% for the younger group. Within-scanner measurements are remarkably reliable across scan sessions, being minimally affected by averaging of multiple acquisitions, B1 correction, acquisition sequence (MPRAGE vs. multi-echo-FLASH), major scanner upgrades (Sonata-Avanto, Trio-TrioTIM), and segmentation atlas (MPRAGE or multi-echo-FLASH). Volume measurements across platforms (Siemens Sonata vs. GE Signa) and field strengths (1.5 T vs. 3 T) result in a volume difference bias but with a comparable variance as that measured within-scanner, implying that multi-site studies may not necessarily require a much larger sample to detect a specific effect. These results suggest that volumes derived from automated segmentation of T1-weighted structural images are reliable measures within the same scanner platform, even after upgrades; however, combining data across platform and across field-strength introduces a bias that should be considered in the design of multi-site studies, such as clinical drug trials. The results derived from the young groups (scanner upgrade effects and B1 inhomogeneity correction effects) should be considered as preliminary and in need for further validation with a larger dataset.

Project description:BackgroundGeometric morphometrics is a powerful approach to capture and quantify morphological shape variation. Both 3D digitizer arms and structured light surface scanners are portable, easy to use, and relatively cheap, which makes these two capturing devices obvious choices for geometric morphometrics. While digitizer arms have been the "gold standard", benefits of having full 3D models are manifold. We assessed the measurement error and investigate bias associated with the use of an open-source, high-resolution structured light scanner called SeeMaLab against the popular Microscribe 3D digitizer arm.MethodologyThe analyses were based on 22 grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) skulls. 31 fixed anatomical landmarks were annotated both directly using a Microscribe 3D digitizer and on reconstructed 3D digital models created from structured light surface scans. Each skull was scanned twice. Two operators annotated the landmarks, each twice on all the skulls and 3D models, allowing for the investigation of multiple sources of measurement error. We performed multiple Procrustes ANOVAs to compare the two devices in terms of within- and between-operator error, to quantify the measurement error induced by device, to compare between-device error with other sources of variation, and to assess the level of scanning-related error. We investigated the presence of general shape bias due to device and operator.ResultsSimilar precision was obtained with both devices. If landmarks that were identified as less clearly defined and thus harder to place were omitted, the scanner pipeline would achieve higher precision than the digitizer. Between-operator error was biased and seemed to be smaller when using the scanner pipeline. There were systematic differences between devices, which was mainly driven by landmarks less clearly defined. The factors device, operator and landmark replica were all statistically significant and of similar size, but were minor sources of total shape variation, compared to the biological variation among grey seal skulls. The scanning-related error was small compared to all other error sources.ConclusionsAs the scanner showed precision similar to the digitizer, a scanner should be used if the advantages of obtaining detailed 3D models of a specimen are desired. To obtain high precision, a pre-study should be conducted to identify difficult landmarks. Due to the observed bias, data from different devices and/or operators should not be combined when the expected biological variation is small, without testing the landmarks for repeatability across platforms and operators. For any study necessitating the combination of landmark measurements from different operators, the scanner pipeline will be better suited. The small scanning-related error indicates that by following the same scanning protocol, different operators can be involved in the scanning process without introducing significant error.

Project description:Background3D laser-based photonic scanners are increasingly used in health studies to estimate body composition. However, too little is known about whether various 3D body scan measures estimate body composition better than single standard anthropometric measures, and which body scans best estimate it. Furthermore, little is known about differences by sex and age.Methods105 men and 96 women aged between 18 and 90 years were analysed. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis was used to estimate whole relative fat mass (RFM), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and skeletal muscle mass index (SMI). An Anthroscan VITUSbodyscan was used to obtain 3D body scans (e.g. volumes, circumferences, lengths). To reduce the number of possible predictors that could predict RFM, VAT and SMI backward elimination was performed. With these selected predictors linear regression on the respective body compositions was performed and the explained variations were compared with models using standard anthropometric measurements (Body Mass Index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR)).ResultsAmong the models based on standard anthropometric measures, WC performed better than BMI and WHtR in estimating body composition in men and women. The explained variations in models including body scan variables are consistently higher than those from standard anthropometrics models, with an increase in explained variations between 5% (RFM for men) and 10% (SMI for men). Furthermore, the explained variation of body composition was additionally increased when age and lifestyle variables were added. For each of the body composition variables, the number of predictors differed between men and women, but included mostly volumes and circumferences in the central waist/chest/hip area and the thighs.Conclusions3D scan models performed better than standard anthropometric measures models to predict body composition. Therefore, it is an advantage for larger health studies to look at body composition more holistically using 3D full body surface scans.

Project description:BackgroundLarge-scale longitudinal and multi-centre studies are used to explore neuroimaging markers of normal ageing, and neurodegenerative and mental health disorders. Longitudinal changes in brain structure are typically small, therefore the reliability of automated techniques is crucial. Determining the effects of different factors on reliability allows investigators to control those adversely affecting reliability, calculate statistical power, or even avoid particular brain measures with low reliability. This study examined the impact of several image acquisition and processing factors and documented the test-retest reliability of structural MRI measurements.MethodsIn Phase I, 20 healthy adults (11 females; aged 20-30 years) were scanned on two occasions three weeks apart on the same scanner using the ADNI-3 protocol. On each occasion, individuals were scanned twice (repetition), after re-entering the scanner (reposition) and after tilting their head forward. At one year follow-up, nine returning individuals and 11 new volunteers were recruited for Phase II (11 females; aged 22-31 years). Scans were acquired on two different scanners using the ADNI-2 and ADNI-3 protocols. Structural images were processed using FreeSurfer (v5.3.0, 6.0.0 and 7.1.0) to provide subcortical and cortical volume, cortical surface area and thickness measurements. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to estimate test-retest reliability. We examined the effect of repetition, reposition, head tilt, time between scans, MRI sequence and scanner on reliability of structural brain measurements. Mean percentage differences were also calculated in supplementary analyses.ResultsUsing the FreeSurfer v7.1.0 longitudinal pipeline, we observed high reliability for subcortical and cortical volumes, and cortical surface areas at repetition, reposition, three weeks and one year (mean ICCs>0.97). Cortical thickness reliability was lower (mean ICCs>0.82). Head tilt had the greatest adverse impact on ICC estimates, for example reducing mean right cortical thickness to ICC=0.74. In contrast, changes in ADNI sequence or MRI scanner had a minimal effect. We observed an increase in reliability for updated FreeSurfer versions, with the longitudinal pipeline consistently having a higher reliability than the cross-sectional pipeline.DiscussionLongitudinal studies should monitor or control head tilt to maximise reliability. We provided the ICC estimates and mean percentage differences for all FreeSurfer brain regions, which may inform power analyses for clinical studies and have implications for the design of future longitudinal studies.

Dataset Information

Scan time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements using a 3D light scanner.

Aim

Materials and methods

Publications

Scan time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements using a 3D light scanner.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets