PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 16, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Facial Landmarks Determination with Different Digital Scanners: An In Vivo Study

View Full Paper
RARita Vanessa AlvesHFHelena FranciscoAPAna Catarina Pinto

Key Points

  • The study aims to compare the accuracy and precision of different facial scanners in measuring facial landmarks.
  • Thirty adult volunteers participated after providing informed consent.
  • Twenty-five facial landmarks and nineteen interlandmark distances were recorded using three methods: digital caliper, low-cost and professional facial scanners.
  • Manual anthropometry served as the clinical reference standard for evaluating the scanners' performance.
  • Precision for Revopoint scanner was 0.58 mm and for RAYFace scanner was 0.43 mm.
  • Mean trueness values were 2.16 mm for Revopoint and 1.92 mm for RAYFace scanner.
  • Significant differences were observed between scanners for specific landmark locations.

Abstract

Background: The development of facial scanning technology has introduced new methods for facial morphology analysis, progressively shifting from conventional methodology such as direct anthropometry and two-dimensional photography toward three-dimensional digital acquisition. These technologies aim to reduce operator subjectivity, enhance measurement reproducibility, and enable comprehensive facial analysis within digital workflows. Methods: Thirty adult volunteers were recruited and provided informed consent. In each participant, twenty-five predefined facial landmarks were identified and nineteen linear interlandmark distances were recorded using three methods: direct anthropometric measurement with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo®, USA), a low-cost portable facial scanner (Revopoint®), and a professional static facial scanner (RAYFace®). Manual anthropometry was used as a clinical refence standard. All measurements were performed by a single trained operator. Trueness was defined as the absolute difference between the reference measurements and the mean of digital measurements, while precision was defined as the standard deviation of repeated digital measurements. Results were expressed as mean values and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Overall precision was 0.58 (0.53; 0.62) mm for Revopoint® and 0.43 (0.39; 0.47) mm for RAYFace®, corresponding to precision percentages of 1.19 (1.06; 1.33) % and 0.88 (0.78; 0.97) %, respectively. Mean trueness values were 2.16 (2.01; 2.31) mm and 1.92 (1.80; 2.05) mm for conventional-Revopoint® and conventional-RAYFace®, corresponding to a trueness impact value of 4.30 (3.87; 4.74) % and 4.08 (3.61; 4.55) %, respectively. Statistically significant differences between scanners were observed for specific landmark locations. Conclusions: Within the methodological limitations of this in vivo study—including the use of manual anthropometry as a reference standard, a single-operator design and a predominantly female sample—both facial scanners demonstrated reproducible linear measurements within clinically acceptable thresholds for prosthodontic and esthetic planning applications. The professional static scanner showed superior accuracy, suggesting greater suitability for complex cases requiring higher precision.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Alves et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699264d1eb1f82dc367a0b04https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041500
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Evaluation of Reproducibility and Accuracy of Facial Soft Tissue Landmarks in Individuals Assessed Using Various 3D Face Scanning Modalities: A Systematic Review2026
  2. 2Evaluation of Four 3D Facial Scanning Technologies: From Photogrammetry to Structured-Light Systems in Clinical Dentistry2026 · 2 citations
  3. 3Precision in Facial Measurements: Comparative Analysis Between a Digital 3D Scanner and an Analog Instrument2025
  4. 4Accuracy (trueness and precision) of two handheld scanners and a smartphone for three‐dimensional facial scanning: An in vivo study2026
  5. 5Evaluation of Trueness and Precision in Extraoral 3D Facial Scanning Systems Using a 3D-Printed Head Model: An In Vitro Study2025 · 3 citations