Cross-sectional study compares accuracy and user experience of smartphone scanning versus CBCT, suggesting viable diagnostic alternatives.
Innovations in smartphone technology have transformed diagnostics in healthcare. In orthodontics, these applications can serve as potential diagnostic tools. The present study analyzed the accuracy of two smartphone-based face scanners compared to a standard CBCT-based facial scanner and evaluated scanning duration, user experience, and preferences for orthodontic diagnostics. This cross-sectional study included 15 individuals aged 18-25 years. Each participant was scanned with a CBCT-based scanner (group 1), SureScan 3D App (group 2), and QLone App (group 3). Accuracy was assessed by superimposing scans using MeshLab and Geomagic Control X software. Scanning duration was recorded. Additionally, 30 orthodontists completed a questionnaire to evaluate user experience with face scans. ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests compared the accuracy and scanning duration, respectively, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess region-based reproducibility. P≤0.05 was considered significant. Smartphone-based apps showed overall accuracy comparable to the conventional scanner (P=0.765). SureScan 3D had the lowest mean error (1.53±0.24 mm). In region-based superimposition, the cheeks and forehead had high reproducibility, followed by the nose with moderate and the perioral area with poor reproducibility. Significant differences in scanning duration were observed (P=0.001), with SureScan 3D having the shortest scanning time (52.80±4.17 seconds) and 93.3% of orthodontists viewed facial scans as a substitute for photographs, though 53.3% still preferred photographs. Smartphone face scanning applications offer accuracy comparable to standard scanners with reduced scanning times. They provide a cost-efficient and reliable alternative to traditional scanners for orthodontic documentation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nehru et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: