Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
A comparative evaluation of photogrammetry software programs and conventional impression techniques for the
Muaiyed Mahmoud Buzayan1, Aeman H Elkezza1, Siti Fauzza Ahmad1
1Senior Lecturer, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Statement Of Problem:
The fabrication of facial prostheses is complicated and time-consuming because of the need for accurate impressions of the facial defects and surrounding tissues. Inaccuracies can arise from soft-tissue compression, involuntary patient movements, and insufficient support for the impression material. Various 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and scanning techniques, including photogrammetry, have been introduced, but their accuracy remains insufficiently evaluated.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of 3D digital casts generated by 4 photogrammetry software programs (Agisoft Metashape, 3DF Zephyr, Meshroom, and Polycam) and casts from 2 conventional impression materials (alginate and polyvinyl siloxane [PVS]) for the fabrication of nasal maxillofacial prostheses.
Material And Methods:
A stone cast of a patient's nose was used as the basis for generating a reference digital 3D cast and another 54 test 3D casts. The reference cast was created by scanning the stone cast using a FARO Optor Lab 3D scanner. The 54 test 3D casts were generated and divided into 6 test groups as follows: Agisoft group: 9 3D casts generated using Agisoft Metashape, a commercial personal computer (PC) software program; 3DF Zephyr group: 9 3D casts generated using 3DF Zephyr, a commercial PC software program; Meshroom group: 9 3D casts generated using Meshroom, a free PC software program; Polycam group: 9 3D casts generated using the Polycam, a commercial Android cloud application; PVS group: 9 3D casts generated indirectly by 3D scanning a gypsum cast made from a polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression of the stone nose cast; and Alginate group: 9 3D casts generated indirectly by scanning a master cast made using alginate impressions of the stone nose cast. Deviation measurements of the produced specimens were analyzed using the Geomagic Control X software program, and statistical comparisons were performed employing the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05).
Results:
The results showed that the 3DF Zephyr group had the smallest deviation measurements (median: 0.057 mm ±0.012) among the 4 photogrammetry software programs, while the alginate impression group had the largest deviations (median: 0.151 mm ±0.094) of the 2 conventional impression materials. Significant differences were observed among the 4 photogrammetry software programs and the 2 conventional impression materials (H=39.41, df=5, P<.001). The casts generated by Agisoft Metashape were significantly more accurate than those produced by Meshroom, Polycam or the conventional impression materials (P=.024, P=.045, P<.001, respectively). The casts produced by 3DF Zephyr were significantly more precise than those created by Meshroom and the conventional impression materials (P=.037, P<.001, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the Agisoft Metashape and 3DF Zephyr groups (P>.05).
Conclusions:
Photogrammetry software programs, specifically Agisoft Metashape and 3DF Zephyr, demonstrated better accuracy than conventional impression materials in creating nasal digital casts. Photogrammetry has the potential to improve workflow and reduce patient discomfort during the fabrication of maxillofacial prostheses. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings.
