Accuracy and reliability of digital craniofacial measurements using a small-format, handheld 3D camera
Accuracy and reliability of digital craniofacial measurements using a small-format, handheld 3D camera
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ocr.12228
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Masoud, M. I.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kim, A. J.;Gu, D.;Masoud, M. I.
结构化摘要目的颅面评估通常包括使用昂贵的相机和6个单反镜头进行三维面部成像，以分析解剖标志物的位置和关系。最近，一种3D小尺寸手持相机被开发出来；然而，该系统的准确性和可靠性在很大程度上尚不清楚。本研究的目的是评估该系统的准确性和可靠性。材料与方法由2名检查员对5名受试者进行30组评估，使用3种不同的方法：直接卡尺、手持3D相机和传统的三脚架3D相机图像。每项评估包括29个人体测量地标，用作面部分析的参考点。两名检查员直接在面部标记地标，并使用3种测量方法测量直线距离。结果进行了手持和直接卡尺与传统相机测量的精确度分析。每一项分析都得出了0.98的相关系数的总体平均值。偏差测量显示，手持和传统相机方法产生的测量值比直接卡尺大(评分员1的平均差异分别为1.74 mm和1.56 mm，评分员2的平均差异分别为0.94 mm和1.02 mm)。手持摄像与传统摄像的大多数测量结果相近，评分者1和评分者2的总体平均差值分别为0.03 mm和0.07 mm。结论手持三维摄像与传统摄像相比具有较高的精度和可靠性，是一种有用的颅面人体测量工具。
Structured AbstractObjectivesCraniofacial assessments often involve three-dimensional facial imaging using an expensive camera with 6 SLR lenses to analyse the positions and relations of anatomic landmarks. Recently, a 3D small-format, handheld camera was developed; however, the accuracy and reliability of this system are largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of this system.Materials & MethodsA total of 30 sets of evaluations were completed by 2 examiners on 5 human subjects, using 3 different methods: direct callipers, 3D handheld camera and conventional tripod 3D camera images. Each evaluation included 29 anthropometric landmarks that were used as reference points for facial analysis. Two examiners marked the landmarks directly on the faces and measured linear distances using the 3 measurement methods.ResultsAccuracy analysis was performed for handheld vs direct calliper vs conventional camera measurements. Each of these analyses yielded a grand mean of correlation coefficients of .98. Bias measurements revealed that the handheld and conventional camera methods yielded larger measurements than direct callipers (with a mean difference of 1.74, 1.56mm, respectively, for rater 1 and 0.94, 1.02mm, respectively, for rater 2). When compared to one another, both the handheld camera and the conventional camera methods yielded similar values for most measurements, with the average overall difference between these modalities of 0.03mm for rater 1 and 0.07mm for rater 2.ConclusionsThe 3D handheld camera showed high accuracy and reliability in comparison with traditional models, indicating that this system may provide a useful tool in craniofacial anthropometry.