Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: A comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry

Furkan Dindaroğlu, Pınar Kutlu, Gökhan Serhat Duran, Serkan Görgülü, Erhan Aslan, Furkan Dindaroğlu, Pınar Kutlu, Gökhan Serhat Duran, Serkan Görgülü, Erhan Aslan

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry by comparing it with the direct anthropometry and digital photogrammetry methods. The reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry was also examined.

Materials and methods: Six profile and four frontal parameters were directly measured on the faces of 80 participants. The same measurements were repeated using two-dimensional (2D) photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry (3dMDflex System, 3dMD, Atlanta, Ga) to obtain images of the subjects. Another observer made the same measurements for images obtained with 3D stereophotogrammetry, and interobserver reproducibility was evaluated for 3D images. Both observers remeasured the 3D images 1 month later, and intraobserver reproducibility was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the paired samples t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

Results: The highest mean difference was 0.30 mm between direct measurement and photogrammetry, 0.21 mm between direct measurement and 3D stereophotogrammetry, and 0.5 mm between photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry. The lowest agreement value was 0.965 in the Sn-Pro parameter between the photogrammetry and 3D stereophotogrammetry methods. Agreement between the two observers varied from 0.90 (Ch-Ch) to 0.99 (Sn-Me) in linear measurements. For intraobserver agreement, the highest difference between means was 0.33 for observer 1 and 1.42 mm for observer 2.

Conclusions: Measurements obtained using 3D stereophotogrammetry indicate that it may be an accurate and reliable imaging method for use in orthodontics.

Keywords: 3D stereophotogrammetry; Direct anthropometry; Photogrammetry.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(A) Two-dimensional photogrammetry with millimeter calibration ruler. (B) Direct anthropometry with a digital millimeter sliding caliper.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Three-dimensional stereophotogrammetric image with anatomic landmarks. Landmark abbreviations: Tr indicates tragus; Ex, exocanthion; En, endocanthion; Gb, glabella; N, nasion; Prn, pronasal; Cl, columella; Al, alare; Sn, subnasal; Ls, labiu m superior; St, stomion; Li, labium inferior; Sm, supramental; Me, menton; Ch, chellion.

References

    1. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res. 1999;2:49–52.
    1. Primozic J, Perinetti G, Richmond S, Ovsenik M. Three-dimensional evaluation of facial asymmetry in association with unilateral functional crossbite in the primary, early, and late mixed dentition phases. Angle Orthod. 2013:83253–258.
    1. Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM. Anthropometric growth study of the head. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:303–308.
    1. Dimaggio FR, Ciusa V, Sforza C, Ferrario VF. Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:475–480.
    1. Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Tortop T. Soft tissue alterations following protraction approaches with and without rapid maxillary expansion. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;38:277–283.
    1. Baik H-S, Kim S-Y. Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3-dimensional laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:167–178.
    1. Zhao H, Du H, Li J, Qin Y. Shadow moiré technology based fast method for the measurement of surface topography. Appl Opt. 2013;52:7874–7881.
    1. Ayoub AF, Wray D, Moos KF, et al. Three-dimensional modeling for modern diagnosis and planning in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1996;11:225–233.
    1. Wong JY, Oh AK, Ohta E, et al. Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:232–239.
    1. Edler R, Wertheim D, Greenhill D. Comparison of radiographic and photographic measurement of mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:167–174.
    1. Cutting CB, McCarthy JG, Karron DB. Three-dimensional input of body surface data using a laser light scanner. Ann Plast Surg. 1988;21:38–45.
    1. Kuijpers MAR, Chiu Y-T, Nada RM, Carels CEL, Fudalej PS. Three-dimensional imaging methods for quantitative analysis of facial soft tissues and skeletal morphology in patients with orofacial clefts: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e93442.
    1. Littlefield TR, Kelly KM, Cherney JC, Beals SP, Pomatto JK. Development of a new three-dimensional cranial imaging system. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15:175–181.
    1. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod. 2004;31:62–70.
    1. Brons S, van Beusichem ME, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Methods to quantify soft-tissue based facial growth and treatment outcomes in children: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41898.
    1. Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Strnad F, Kochel M, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A. 3D soft tissue analysis—part 1: sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71:40–52.
    1. Metzger TE, Kula KS, Eckert GJ, Ghoneima AA. Orthodontic soft-tissue parameters: a comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and the 3dMD imaging system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:672–681.
    1. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:507–518.
    1. Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT. Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;138A:247–253.
    1. Winder RJ, Darvann TA, McKnight W, Magee JDM, Ramsay-Baggs P. Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46:33–37.
    1. Kohn LA, Cheverud JM, Bhatia G, Commean P, Smith K, Vannier MW. Anthropometric optical surface imaging system repeatability, precision, and validation. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34:362–371.
    1. Tzou C-H. J, Artner NM, Pona I, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:489–497.
    1. Plooij JM, Swennen GRJ, Rangel FA, et al. Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:267–273.
    1. Khambay B, Nairn N, Bell A, Miller J, Bowman A, Ayoub AF. Validation and reproducibility of a high-resolution three-dimensional facial imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46:27–32.
    1. Lübbers H-T, Medinger L, Kruse A, Grätz KW, Matthews F. Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:763–767.
    1. Schaaf H, Pons-Kuehnemann J, Malik CY, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional photogrammetric images in non-synostotic cranial deformities. Neuropediatrics. 2010;41:24–29.
    1. Heike CL, Cunningham ML, Hing AV, Stuhaug E, Starr JR. Picture perfect? Reliability of craniofacial anthropometry using three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1261–1272.
    1. Farkas LG, Bryson W, Klotz J. Is photogrammetry of the face reliable. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66:346–355.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir