Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of precision in dental 3D facial scanning across handheld, fixed multicamera,
Seok-Ha Hwang1, Keun-Woo Lee2, June-Sung Shim3
1Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Statement Of Problem:
Although various 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanners have been used in clinical practice, comparative data on their precision and clinical acceptability remain limited. In particular, quantitative and qualitative evaluations comparing industrial handheld, stationary, and smartphone-based scanners, essential for evidence-based device selection, are lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare and evaluate the 3D data precision of 3 clinically used facial scanners.
Material And Methods:
A mannequin replicating human facial features was created, with Ø4-cm spheres attached to the forehead and bilateral lateral regions. The industrial handheld scanner (IHS) (Artec Space Spider), stationary facial scanner (SFS) (Arc-4), and smartphone with depth camera (SDC) (iPhone) were used to scan the mannequin's head. Scan data were superimposed using the best-fit algorithm in reverse engineering software program (Geomagic control X) to calculate the root mean square (RMS) deviation and a color map of shell-to-shell deviations. Digital distance measurements between the spheres were made, and qualitative evaluation included texture and polygon size. Statistical analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model (α=.05).
Results:
The mean RMS deviation was 0.05 mm, 0.23 mm, and 0.36 mm for IHS, SFS, and SDC, respectively (P<.001). A color map comparison showed that IHS had minimal superimposition error, while SDC displayed more prominent spots and greater deviations, particularly in the center and on the periphery. Distances between reference points were significantly higher for SFS than IHS and SDC. IHS produced the smallest polygons and accurately reproduced curved regions, while SFS and SDC showed larger, more irregular polygons.
Conclusions:
IHS had the highest precision, followed by SFS and SDC. IHS's handheld nature may reduce unscannable areas, improving accuracy. While SDC showed lower precision, its deviation of 0.36 mm was still clinically acceptable for facial scanning.
