Smartphone applications for facial scanning: A technical and scoping review

Thanatchaporn Jindanil; Lianyi Xu; Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele; Maria Cadenas de Llano Perula; Reinhilde Jacobs

doi:10.1111/ocr.12821

. 2024 Jun 6;27(Suppl 2):65–87. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12821

Smartphone applications for facial scanning: A technical and scoping review

Thanatchaporn Jindanil ¹, Lianyi Xu ^1,², Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele ¹, Maria Cadenas de Llano Perula ³, Reinhilde Jacobs ^1,^4,^✉

PMCID: PMC11654360 PMID: 38842250

Abstract

Introduction

Facial scanning through smartphone scanning applications (SSA) is increasingly being used for medical applications as cost‐effective, chairside method. However, clinical validation is lacking. This review aims to address: (1) Which SSA could perform facial scanning? (2) Which SSA can be clinically used? (3) Which SSA have been reported and scientifically validated for medical applications?

Methods

Technical search for SSA designed for face or object scanning was conducted on Google, Apple App Store, and Google Play Store from August 2022 to December 2023. Literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP (WHO) and preprints up to 2023. Eligibility criteria included English‐written scientific articles incorporating at least one SSA for clinical purposes. SSA selection and data extraction were executed by one reviewer, validated by second, with third reviewer being consulted for discordances.

Results

Sixty‐three applications designed for three‐dimensional object scanning were retrieved, with 52 currently offering facial scanning capabilities. Fifty‐six scientific articles, comprising two case reports, 16 proof‐of‐concepts and 38 experimental studies were analysed. Thirteen applications (123D Catch, 3D Creator, Bellus 3D Dental Pro, Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Maker, Capture, Heges, Metascan, Polycam, Scandy Pro, Scaniverse, Tap tap tap and Trnio) were reported in literature for digital workflow integration, comparison or proof‐of‐concept studies.

Conclusion

Fifty‐two SSA can perform facial scanning currently and can be used clinically, offering cost‐effectiveness, portability and user‐friendliness. Although clinical validation is crucial, only 13 SSA were scientifically validated, underlying awareness of potential pitfalls and limitations.

Keywords: digital technologies, facial scan, review, smartphone

1. INTRODUCTION

Facial morphology is integral to a wide range of fields, including dentistry, medicine, social science and art, as it expresses uniqueness and can serve as an identifier of individuals. ¹ In a clinical perspective, the analysis of facial morphology has classically been performed with two‐dimensional (2D) photography. However, this approach does not permit the quantification of facial volume or asymmetry, which constitutes the primary advantage of three‐dimensional (3D) photography and facial scanning. ² , ³ , ⁴ Facial scanning simplifies the gathering and examination of clinical data, which can be employed in diagnosis, treatment planning and communication. ⁵

The technology behind facial scanners has been continuously developed over the decades. The pioneering integration into clinical practice began with the use of 3D laser scanning, which involves timing a laser's reflection to calculate object distance using triangulation. ⁶ Although this method yields high image resolution, ⁶ , ⁷ it is also time‐consuming and prone to motion artefacts. ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ The modern generation of scanners addresses this challenge by reducing scan time, relying on principles such as photogrammetry, stereophotogrammetry and structured light. ¹¹ , ¹² , ¹³ Photogrammetry uses stitched photographs, while stereophotogrammetry, the current clinical standard, captures object images from multiple positions and calculates 3D coordinates through mathematical registration in post‐processing software. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ , ¹⁶ It offers faster scanning time with reproducible results and serves as a cost‐effective alternative to laser scanning, though it may require longer post‐processing and could lead to surface artefacts and uneven coverage. ⁶ , ¹⁷ Structured light technology reduces costs while providing speed and cost‐effectiveness. It operates by projecting light onto surfaces and capturing shapes from various angles using trigonometric triangulation with an active sensor. ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁰ , ²¹ However, it is sensitive to lighting conditions and can lead to motion artefacts and variable repeatability. ¹² The main advantage of all mentioned scanning technologies is the fact that they do not involve radiation and they are non‐invasive. ²² Nevertheless, cost and limited accessibility hinder their clinical use.

Smartphone could serve as a low‐cost alternative for obtaining scans with the excellent precision, ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ The new smartphone generations, equipped with internal cameras and structured infrared light, can produce quality 3D scans. ²⁶ , ²⁷ The technologies behind their success are the TrueDepth camera and the Light Detection and Ranging technology (LiDAR). The built‐in TrueDepth camera uses a light‐emitting diode to project a grid of over 30 000 infrared dots, recording depth within milliseconds. This allows for real‐time data collection, even in low‐light conditions with the use of an infrared illuminator. ²⁸ , ²⁹ , ³⁰ LiDAR functions by emitting light pulses and measuring their reflections to calculate object distances, creating 2D or 3D maps from the data points. ³¹ , ³² The availability and capability of current smartphones, together with the development of supporting applications, have facilitated their widespread use in 3D facial identification, reconstruction and medical planning, having various clinical applications. ³³ , ³⁴

Despite this, there are limited studies on the availability of smartphone scanning applications (SSA) for clinical purposes and how they can be used. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following questions: (1) Which SSA can perform face scanning for clinical purposes? (2) Are there applications suitable for clinical settings and how are they used? (3) Which applications reported in the literature have been validated for medical applications?

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

To comprehensively address all the questions, the review was structured into two distinct parts. Part 1 was a technical review focused on evaluating SSA, requiring a separate search to obtain the most up‐to‐date data directly from search engines, as scientific research often trails behind technological advancements and commercialization. Part 2 constituted a scoping review of the existing literature on the related subject.

2.1. Part 1: Technical review of smartphone scanning applications

2.1.1. Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria for this search encompassed smartphone applications capable of scanning human faces, as explicitly described in the application's description or demonstrated through illustrations. Additionally, applications with the capability to scan objects were also considered, given their utilization in clinical literature. The time frame for inclusion spanned applications available in stores from July 2022 to December 2023. On the other hand, exclusion criteria involved applications not specifically designed for photography purposes, particularly those not intended for face scanning or object scanning.

2.1.2. Information sources

To identify potential SSA, electronic searches were performed on the following search engines from August 2022 to December 2023: Google, Apple App Store, and Google Play Store. The search terms used included: ‘face scan application’, ‘face scanning application’, ‘facial scan application’, ‘facial scanning application’ and ‘scanning application’. Identical terms without the word ‘application’ were applied in both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Upon displaying the search results, applications developed by the same developers and suggested related applications were further reviewed.

2.1.3. SSA selection, data collection and synthesis of the results

One reviewer (TJ) independently selected the SSA, and this selection was double checked by a second reviewer (XL). For data collection, a chart was designed by one reviewer (TJ) and thoroughly discussed with a second one (XL). The collected information from various sources included the developer's details, application name, operating system (e.g. Android/iPhone Operating System [iOS]), version information, whether there was a version update in 2023 and the reasons for it, availability (i.e. free or in app purchase), the country where the developer is based, language support, application's purpose (e.g. clinical, entertainment, photography or tool), privacy data collected by the applications, and any other relevant remarks. The privacy data collected by the applications encompassed contact information, identifiers, diagnostics, location, usage data and user content. These data were categorized as either ‘No data collection’, ‘No data available’ or ‘Data collection’. In the case of data collection, the specific types of data collected were specified. To synthesize the data, an Excel file was initially piloted by the first reviewer (TJ). The final version of this file was then converted into a Word table after discussion with a second reviewer (XL). In instances of disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted, and consensus was achieved.

2.2. Part 2: Scoping review of the literature

2.2.1. Protocol and registration

The protocol for this scoping review was written before commencement and follows the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR), accessible through http://prisma‐statement.org. PRISMA‐ScR was developed in accordance with the guidelines published by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network for the development of reporting guidelines. The protocol was pre‐registered in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KN6RS).

2.2.2. Eligibility criteria

For this scoping review, studies incorporating at least one SSA into their methods, specifically for scanning the facial region, conducted in vitro or in vivo and for clinical purposes were included. Exclusion criteria encompass studies that do not incorporate SSA in their methods, conference abstracts and systematic reviews.

2.2.3. Information sources

To identify potentially relevant articles, the following electronic databases were explored, covering the publication up to December 2023: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP (WHO) and preprints. The search strings were initially drafted with the assistance of biomedical reference librarians and refined through discussions by two reviewers (TJ and XL). The final search strings and the modified versions used in each respective database are available in Table S1. The resulting search results were exported to the reference manager EndNote (version 20, Clarivate Analytics, Pennsylvania, USA), where duplicates were eliminated. Subsequently, a manual examination of the reference lists of key articles was conducted to identify additionally relevant articles.

2.2.4. Study selection

Two reviewers (TJ and XL) initially screened the same list of articles based on their titles and subsequently reviewed potentially relevant abstracts to enhance consistency among the reviewers. Following this, a full‐text screening was conducted to determine whether the articles met the inclusion criteria. Any controversies were dealt through discussion or further involvement of a senior advisor (RJ).

2.2.5. Data items and data charting process

One reviewer (TJ) developed a data‐charting, which was subsequently validated by the second reviewer (XL). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The following information was collected from the included articles: application(s) used, article characteristics (e.g. authors and year of publication), study characteristics (e.g. design, field of study, application integration and objectives), study population and clinical applicability.

2.2.6. Synthesis of results and critical appraisal

The Excel file was initially drafted by the first reviewer (TJ). Following a discussion with the second reviewer (XL), the finalized version of this file was then transformed into a Word table. Articles were grouped into three main categories based on the integration of applications: (i) those incorporating smartphone applications as part of a specific digital workflow, (ii) those comparing smartphone applications with other hardware/software or techniques (i.e. comparative studies) and (iii) those using smartphone applications as a research tool. They were respectively labelled as ‘Workflow’, Comparison’ and ‘Validation’.

An additional data extraction table was created for studies comparing different SSA. This table included information such as the device used (hardware), principle used (e.g. static stereophotogrammetry, portable structured light, magnetic resonance imaging, laser or not applicable). This information was separately compiled for the control and test groups involved in the study, followed by the study's conclusion.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Part 1: Technical review of smartphone scanning applications

A total of 82 applications were identified through the search engines and manual searching; After thorough consideration, 63 applications, including 11 applications with sales termination, were deemed eligible.

Table 1 shows the list of smartphone applications with potential use for face scanning. The majority of these applications operated on the iOS system (n = 37, 59%), followed by 16 on the Android system (25%) and 10 were compatible with both systems (16%). The initial iOS version supported was 9.3, with the most common iOS‐based application version being 15.0 (n = 11). For android, the initial and most common version supported was 4.0 (n = 6). These applications were developed by 53 developers from 19 different countries, with 28 developers based in the United States (53%), followed by Canada, Germany and Japan (6% each).

TABLE 1.

Smartphone applications with potential use for face scanning.

Developer	Application name	Operating system			Availability	Country of the developer	Language support	Purpose of the application	Literature/ clinical use	Privacy data collected	Remarks
Developer	Application name	System	Version	Version update in 2023, why	Availability	Country of the developer	Language support	Purpose of the application	Literature/ clinical use	Privacy data collected	Remarks
3D ProBox tech.	3D ProBox	Android	Android 4.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed	Free	Turkey	English	Photography (human, object, place)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, user content	Optional subscription
Abound Labs Inc.	Metascan 3D scanner	iOS	iOS 14.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, performance	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object, place, interior)	No	Diagnostics, location, usage data, user content	LiDAR mode for capable devices
Aimfire	Camarada	Android	Android 4.4 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (Object, exterior)	No	No data available	Last update in December 2018
AR Generation	MagiScan	iOS, Android	iOS 15.0 or later Android 4.0 or later	Yes, user interface	In app purchase	Poland	English +20 more	Photography (object, graphic design)	No	Diagnostics, identifiers, location, usage data, user content
Autodesk	123D Catch	iOS, Android	No data	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (human, object, place)	Yes	No data collection	Sale termination
Bellus 3D Inc	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	iOS	iOS 12.2 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (facial scan)	Yes	No data available	Sale termination
	Bellus 3D Face Maker	iOS	iOS 13 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (facial scan)	Yes	No data available	Sale termination
	Bellus 3D Face app	iOS	IOS 11.1 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (facial scan)	Yes	No data available	Sale termination
Brawny Lads Software, LCC	EM3D	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (human)	No	No data collection
Capacity	3DShot: 3D Product Photography	Android	Android 7.0 or later	Yes, performance	Free	USA	English	Photography (human, object, place)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, user content
Dmitriy Evdokimenko	Modelified	iOS	iOS 14.1 or later	No	In app purchase	Turkey	English	Photography (human, object)	No	No data available	Last update in July 2021
EORA 3D	Eora Studio	Android	Android 6.0 or later	No	Free	Australia	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Last update in August 2018
Evgeny Zhukov	3D LiDAR Scanner	iOS	Android 14.0 or later	No	Free	USA	English	Photography (environment, object)	No	No data collection
EyeCue Vision Technologies LTD	Qlone 3D Scanner	iOS, Android	iOS 12.0 or later Android 7.0 or later	Yes, optimization	In app purchase	USA	English +16 more	Photography (facial scan, human, object)	No	Location, usage data
HAN WEI WANG	3D Lidar Viewer	iOS	Android 13.0 or later	No	Free	China	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Heytopia LLC	3D Photos: Photogrammetry USDZ	iOS	Android 14.1 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
	3D Photos Pro–Object Capture	iOS	Android 14.1 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Itseez3D Inc.	ItSeez3D	iOS	iOS 11.0 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (human, object)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, user content	Only for iPad
Kiri Innovations Science and Tech.	3DScanLink	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Canada	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Kiri Innovations Science and Tech.	3D Scanner & NeRF: KIRI Engine	iOS, Android	iOS 13.0 or later Android 4.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	Canada	English	Photography (human, object)	No	App Store: No data collection Play Store: Contact info, usage data, user content	Optional setting for privacy
Laan Consulting Corp	3D Scanner App	iOS	iOS 14.0 or later	No	Free	Canada	English	Photography (object)	No	Diagnostics, usage data,	LiDAR capable devices is required
Lagarrigue Aquitaine	Captevia	iOS	iOS 10.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, security	Free	France	English +4 more	Photography (human)	No	No data available	Structure sensor is required Sale termination
Lubos Vonasek	3D Live Scanner	Android	Android 9.0 or later	No	Free	Germany	English	Photography (face scan, interior, exterior)	No	No data available	Last update in July 2022
Marek Simonik	Heges 3D scanner	iOS	iOS 14.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Czech Republic	English	Photography (face scan)	Yes	No data collection
Memera	Overlay Scan–3D Models+LiDAR	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, performance	Free		English	Photography (exterior, object)	No	No data collection	For industrial workflow
Mod Tech Labs	MOD 3D Scanner	Android	Android 4.0 or later	No	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Last update in March 2022
Nettelo Inc.	Nettelo–3D body scanning and analysis	Android	Android 4.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed	Free	USA	English +1 more	Photography (human)	No	Contact info, identifiers user content
Niels Jansson	Patchy Scan 3D–AR	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	Netherlands	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Niels Jansson	Face Scan–Blendshapes	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Netherlands	English	Photography (face scan)	No	No data collection
Nova Research Co., Ltd.	GoodScan 3D	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Thailand	English +1 more	Photography (exterior, object)	No	No data collection
Pix4D S.A.	PIX4Dcatch: 3D scanner	iOS, Android	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, performance	Free	Switzerland	English +6 more	Photography (exterior, forensics)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, usage data, user content
Polycam Inc.	Polycam	iOS	iOS 14.2 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	USA	English +14 more	Photography (object, interior)	No	Diagnostics usage data
Proteor	Orten 3D Cam	iOS	iOS 12.0 or later	Yes, performance, system compatibility	Free	USA	English	Photography (human, object)	No	Contact info, identifiers	Structure sensor is required
Reality Apps LLC	Real Scan	iOS	iOS 16.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	USA	English +1 more	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Recon‐3D Inc.	Recon‐3D	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, performance	In app purchase	Canada	English	Photography (object, forensics)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, user content
Revopoint 3D Tech. Inc	Revo Scan–3D Scanner App	iOS, Android	iOS 13, Android 4.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection	External Revopoint 3D MINI scanner is required
Scandy Inc.	Scandy Pro	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	Yes	Diagnostics, usage data
	STL Maker	iOS	iOS 12.0 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (face scan, object)	No	Diagnostics, location, usage data
Shijiang Zhou	3DD Capture	iOS	iOS 14.0 or later	No	Free	China	English +4 more	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
SmartMobileVision	Scann3D	Android	Android 5.1 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
Smart Soft, K.K.	3D Object Capture	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	Japan	English +3 more	Photography (object)	No	No data collection	Further processing in MacOS is required
Sony	Sony 3D Creator	Android	Android 8.0 or later	No	Free	Japan	English +37 more	Photography (face scan, object)	Yes	No data available	Last update in January 2022
Spectre3D	Spectre3D	iOS, Android	iOS 14.0 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (human, object, environment)	No	No data collection
State Of The Art	Handy 3D Scanner	Android	Android 5.0 or later	No	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Last update in May 2021
Supportec Lean Services B.V.	Capture 3D	iOS, Android	iOS 12.2 or later	No	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection	Structure sensor is required
Svetlana Nasonova	3D TrueDepth Camera Scan	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Russia	English	Photography (object)	No	Diagnostics, identifiers	TrueDepth camera capable device is required
Unreal Engine	RealityScan–3D Scanning App	iOS, Android	iOS 16 or later	Yes, bug fixed	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, usage data, user content
SuTV	3DScanner–Photos to 3D Model	Android	Android 5.0 or later	Yes, performance	Free	Vietnam	English	Photography (object)	No	Contact info, identifiers	Optional setting for privacy
Tahir Akbar	Photogrammetry for 3D scan	iOS	iOS 14.3 or later	No	In app purchase	Pakistan	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Sale termination
	Lidar 3d Scanner	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Pakistan	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Sale termination
	3D TrueDepth Camera Scan	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	No	In app purchase	Pakistan	English	Photography (human, object)	No	No data available	Sale termination
Threedium	Unlimited 3D scanner	Android	Android 8.0 or later	No	Free	UK	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Last update in August 2022
Toolbox Al, Inc	Scaniverse	iOS	iOS 14.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	Yes	Contact info, diagnostics, identifiers, location, usage data, user content	LiDAR capable devices is required
Trendideen Lueers	Projook–3D Scan	Android	Android 4.4 or later	No	Free	Germany	English	Photography (object)	No	Contact info, identifiers, usage data, user content	Optional setting for privacy
Trnio Inc.	Trnio 3D scanner	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	Yes	No data available	Sale termination
Trnio Inc.	Trnio Plus 3D scanner	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later		In app purchase	USA	English +5 more	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Sale termination, LiDAR capable devices is required
Tycho Technolgoies Pvt Ltd	Scanamaze	Android	Android 7.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, performance	Free	India	English	Photography (object)	No	User content	No optional setting for privacy
Vastly Underrated GmbH	xplicator 3D scan	iOS	iOS 9.3 or later	No	In app purchase	Germany	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Last update in March 2018
WOGO inc.	WIDAR – 3D scan and edit	iOS, Android	iOS 14.5 or later	No	In app purchase	Japan	English +1 more	Photography (object)	No	Contact info, identifier, location, usage data, user content
Xplorazzi Tech	3D Scanner Pro	Android	Android 5.1 or later	No	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data available	Sale termination
	xOne 3D Scanner	Android	Android 8.0 or later	Yes, bug fixed, performance	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection
XRPro, LLC	Scanner–Structure SDK	iOS	iOS 13.0 or later	Yes, performance	Free	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	Identifier, usage data	Structure sensor is required
Xyken	SureScan 3D Scanner, 3D App	iOS	iOS 15.0 or later	Yes, performance	In app purchase	USA	English	Photography (object)	No	No data collection

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: App, Application; iOS, iPhone operating system; LiDAR, light detection and ranging technology; MacOS, Macintosh operating system.

In 2023, 25 different companies actively released new versions of various applications, addressing technical issues or bug fixes, improving user interface, optimizing the SSA, managing security, and enhancing the system compatibility and performance. Performance improvements included expanding file format options, sharing capabilities, transformation and data capturing. While 40% of applications could be downloaded for free, the remaining SSA required payment for file export through in‐app purchases. All SSA were in English, with 14% (n = 9) supporting a second language (French) and 14% (n = 9) supporting more than three languages.

Among the applications in the list, 13 were used in scientific literature (123D Catch, 3D Creator, Bellus 3D Dental Pro, Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Maker, Capture, Heges, Metascan, Polycam, Scandy Pro, Scaniverse, Tap tap tap and Trnio), and of these, six had terminated sales (123D Catch, Bellus 3D Dental Pro, Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Maker, Heges and Trnio), while two (Capture and Tap tap tap) lacked further information. In terms of privacy data collected by applications, 23 applications collected various types of user data. On other hand, 19 applications, including those with terminated sales (30%), did not provide data collection details, and 20 applications (32%) explicitly stated that they did not collect any data. Figure 1 illustrates examples of scans from commercial scanners alongside some available SSA.

Example of the scans from (A) commercial scanners vs. (B) some of the available smartphone scanning applications.

3.2. Part 2: Scoping review of the literature

After removing duplicates, a total of 11 293 citations were identified through electronic databases and manual searching, from which 56 studies ² , ²² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ²⁸ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁵ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁸ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵¹ , ⁵² , ⁵³ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁶ , ⁵⁷ , ⁵⁸ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷¹ , ⁷² , ⁷³ , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ , ⁷⁸ , ⁷⁹ , ⁸⁰ , ⁸¹ , ⁸² were considered eligible for review. Figure 2 presents the search flowchart.

The characteristics of the included studies are described in Table 2. The 56 studies comprised two case reports (4%), ⁵¹ , ⁶⁶ 16 proof‐of‐concept (28%) ²⁸ , ³⁵ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴⁸ , ⁵² , ⁵³ , ⁵⁶ , ⁵⁷ , ⁵⁸ , ⁷³ , ⁷⁹ , ⁸⁰ , ⁸¹ , ⁸² and 38 experimental studies (68%). ² , ²² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷¹ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ , ⁷⁸ There is a notable increase in publications, ranging from one publication in 2016 ³⁵ to 18 in 2022. ²⁸ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵¹ , ⁵⁷ , ⁵⁸ , ⁶¹ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷¹ , ⁷² , ⁸² These studies were primarily conducted in the fields of dentistry (n = 44) ² , ²² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ²⁸ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁸ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵¹ , ⁵² , ⁵³ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁸ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁸ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷¹ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁷ , ⁸¹ and medicine (n = 12), ³⁵ , ⁵⁶ , ⁵⁷ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷³ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁸ , ⁷⁹ , ⁸⁰ , ⁸² encompassing forensics, general medicine, neurology, ophthalmology and plastic surgery. Half of the facial scanning application implementations were in comparative studies that contrasted smartphone applications with dedicated clinical scanners (50%). ² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ²⁸ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ⁴¹ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ The majority of studies included adult participants (n = 38, 68%), ²² , ²⁴ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁵ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁸ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵¹ , ⁵² , ⁵³ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁷ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶³ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁸ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷¹ , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁷ , ⁷⁸ , ⁸¹ followed by children (n = 7, 12%), ²⁸ , ⁵⁶ , ⁵⁸ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁹ model or mannequin heads (n = 8, 14%), ² , ²³ , ²⁵ , ⁴⁵ , ⁵⁰ , ⁶² , ⁷² , ⁷⁶ human cadavers (n = 2, 4%) ⁸⁰ , ⁸² or did not disclose this information (n = 1, 2%). ⁷³

TABLE 2.

Characteristics of the included studies using SSA.

	Application(s)	Author, year	Study design	Application integration	Objectives	Study population	Clinical applicability
1	123D Catch	Elbashti et al., 2019 ²³	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the accuracy of a smartphone application for digitizing a facial defect for 3D modelling	A stone model with defect	Data acquisition with a smartphone SSA for 3D modelling is not as accurate as that achieved with commercial laser scanner
2	123D Catch	Salazar‐Gamarra et al., 2016 ³⁵	Proof of concept	Workflow	To present technique to obtain 3D models using mobile device and free software for 3D printing facial prosthesis	An adult who needed prosthetic rehabilitation	SSA could be a feasible solution for obtaining 3D model for maxillofacial prosthesis, especially with a user‐friendly tutorial that serves clinical needs
3	3D Creator	Daher et al., 2018 ³⁶	Proof of concept	Workflow	To explain a simple and accessible workflow that use 3D facial scanning benefits to general practitioners	An adult patient	SSA can be a cost‐effective and fast tool for processes that do not require high precision, such as patient education and 3D digital smile design
4	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Li et al., 2021 ³⁷	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe the application of a virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion during aesthetic restoration in a digital workflow	An adult Patient who needed aesthetic restoration of maxillary incisor	Face scan obtained from SSA can be used to create virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion, improving aesthetic outcomes
5	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Lin et al., 2023 ³⁸	Experimental	Comparison, Research tool	To compare the performance of various virtual articulator mounting procedures	14 Healthy adults	The use of SSA provides a suitable and radiation‐free option for clinicians
6	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Oancea et al., 2020 ³⁹	Experimental	Research tool	To test the reliability of the correlation between the occlusal vertical dimension and anthropometric/cephalometric methods	10 healthy adults	SSA can help with predictable occlusal vertical dimension registration, with strong agreement between measurements, but additional measurement methods are still necessary for determination
7	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Pan et al., 2022 ⁴⁰	Proof of concept	Workflow	To introduce a customized mask retainer for improved surgical mask fit	10 healthy adults	SSA can provide 3D facial scan data at a low price and can be incorporated for 3D printing techniques
8	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Pelliterri et al., 2021 ⁴¹	Experimental	Comparison	To compare the degree of accuracy of facial scanners as routine diagnostic tests	25 healthy adults who had finished growing	SSA had slightly less consistent distance measurements than the commercial scanner, but both methods produced comparable, consistent, and reproducible scans
9	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Raffone et al., 2022 ⁴²	Experimental	Research tool	To investigate the trueness and precision of a low‐cost portable face scanner, with two different scan techniques	10 healthy adults	SSA can be suitable for clinical use with the suggestion of using guided technique for reliable clinical use with motion artefact reduction
10	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Raffone et al., 2022 ⁴³	Experimental	Research tool	To evaluate matching reliability of multiple face scans using frontal adhesives references	9 healthy adults	SSA with adhesive references seems to be suitable for clinical superimposition, even with different facial expressions
11	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Thurzo et al., 2022 ⁴⁴	Experimental	Comparison	To assess accuracy of facial scan created with TrueDepth sensors compared to facial surface from the CBCT	60 healthy adults	TrueDepth sensor with SSA has limited clinical applicability and cannot yet match CBCT accuracy due to differences in distance, with variations over 3 mm in some facial regions
12	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Thurzo et al., 2022 ²⁸	Proof of concept	Workflow	To introduce a non‐invasive 3D scanning and printing method for addressing problems from upper airway obstruction	An infant with Pierre Robin sequence	TrueDepth sensor with SSA is an accessible 3D facial scanner that can be used to create orthodontic appliances with personalized extraoral parts
13	Bellus 3D Dental Pro, Capture, Heges, Scandy Pro	Kühlman et al., 2023 ⁴⁵	Experimental	Comparison	To investigate overall and regional accuracy (trueness and precision) of facial scans from four SSA	A mannequin head	Mean absolute differences and standard deviations for trueness and precision of all SSA are less than 1 mm, which can be considered highly acceptable for clinical use
14	Bellus 3D Dental Pro	Caputo et al., 2023 ⁴⁶	Experimental	Workflow	To evaluate swelling after impacted third molar removal with two osteotomy methods	22 healthy adults	SSA can provide 3D facial scans as reliable data for objective and reproducible comparisons, reducing variables of error
15	Bellus 3D Face app	Mai et al., 2022 ⁴⁷	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate effects of extraoral markers on facial integration accuracy in smartphone and stereophotogrammetry face scanning	10 healthy adults with full anterior teeth	Stereophotogrammetry is generally more accurate than smartphones, especially with markers, as smartphones are susceptible to motion artefacts
16	Bellus 3D Face app	Swennen et al., 2020 ⁴⁸	Proof of concept	Workflow	To present a proof of concept and prototype of a reusable custom‐made 3D printed face mask	A healthy adult	Smartphones with SSA s make 3D facial scanning available worldwide with the proof of their value in the workflow
17	Bellus 3D Face app	Wang et al., 2022 ⁴⁹	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the trueness of one stationary and two mobile systems for 3D facial scanning	Healthy adults	SSA provides reliable 3D reconstruction, but smartphone capacity and data acquisition sequence may affect trueness
18	Bellus 3D Face app	Gallardo et al., 2023 ⁵⁰	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the trueness of 3D facial scanning by using Bellus3D and + ID ReCap Photo	A mannequin head	SSA demonstrated clinically acceptable trueness, but lower repeatability compared to a portable structured‐light scanner
19	Bellus 3D Face app	Atusay et al., 2022 ⁵¹	Case report	Workflow	To describe workflow for patient smile transformation using intraoral scanner, SSA and design software	An adult patient with current smile dissatisfaction	SSA can effectively deliver desired outcomes to patients and facilitate treatment planning and fabrication processes
20	Bellus 3D Face app	Granata et al., 2020 ⁵²	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe workflow for integrating 3D files from intraoral, CBCT and facial scans as well as their clinical use with the digital bite device	An adult with planned for implant‐supported maxillary prosthesis	SSA can provide 3D facial scans to be integrated into the workflow along with intraoral scans and CBCT using digital bite
21	Bellus 3D Face app	Lo Russo et al., 2019 ⁵³	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe the procedure for merging intraoral, perioral, nose scans obtained with intraoral scanner with face scan obtained with mobile phone	An adult with complete edentulism	Combining 3D facial scans from SSA with intraoral scans effectively integrates into a digital patient for optimizing individual tooth arrangement in digital denture design
22	Bellus 3D Face app	Mai et al., 2020 ⁵⁴	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the impact of reference images on dentofacial integration accuracy in smartphone and stereophotogrammetry face‐scanning systems	A healthy adult with full anterior teeth	SSA ‘s scan quality may be inferior to stereophotogrammetry due to depth sensitivity, especially in regions with low depth contrast, such as central incisors, resulting in reconstruction difficulties
23	Bellus 3D Face app	Popov et al., 2023 ⁷⁸	Experimental	Research tool	To access accuracy, precision, inter‐operator reliability of method using SSA as exophthalmometer	Adults with exophthalmos and healthy adults	SSA provide high accuracy and precision, inter‐operator reliability for smartphone exophthalmometry
24	Bellus 3D Face app	Singh et al., 2023 ⁷⁷	Experimental	Research tool	To compare accuracy of 3D images obtained from SSA, direct anthropometry and static stereophotogrammetry	22 healthy adults who underwent orthognathic surgery	SSA demonstrated no difference in linear and angular measurements compared to the clinical standard, with fair trueness and clinically acceptable variation in differences
25	Bellus 3D Face app	Abbate et al., 2023 ⁵⁵	Experimental	Workflow	To quantitatively measure the degree of facial ptosis in diverse population, according to gender, age and BMI	60 healthy adults	Facial scans obtained by SSA provided very accurate, low cost, easily reproducible facial scans suitable for morphological study
26	Bellus 3D Face app	Akan et al., 2021 ³³	Experimental	Comparison	To investigate the clinical effectiveness and practicality of 3D facial soft tissue captured with a smartphone	26 healthy adults without moustache or beard	Smartphones equipped with depth sensors are suitable options for 3D imaging in clinical practice. The scans partially resemble scans from static stereophotogrammetry devices
27	Bellus 3D Face app	Alazzam et al., 2021 ⁵⁶	Proof of concept	Workflow	To demonstrate the use of affordable technology, combining a smartphone, open‐source CAD software and a 3D printer for planning ear location in unilateral microtia reconstruction	A child with unilateral microtia reconstruction	SSA was chosen for its user‐friendly interface and child safety. It integrates with CAD system for cost‐effective and time‐saving pre‐operative treatment planning
28	Bellus 3D Face app	Alhazmi et al., 2022 ⁵⁷	Proof of concept	Workflow	To present workflow for producing custom facial orthosis for burn scar management using a smartphone scanner and desktop 3D printing	An adult patient with facial burn scar	Using smartphone‐based scanner is a key advantage in this digital framework with CAD and 3D printing. Smartphone camera and software advancements provide comparable precision to commercial scanners
29	Bellus 3D Face app	Alisha et al., 2022 ⁵⁸	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe an innovative metal frame for aiding in hassle‐free, reproducible 3D scanning of infants born with craniofacial deformity	A child with unilateral cleft lip and palate	A smartphone‐based scanner, combined with a frame, provides distortion‐free scans in seconds, proving its usefulness in real‐time clinical scenarios
30	Bellus 3D Face app	Amornvit and Sanohkan, 2019 ²	Experimental	Comparison	To analyse the facial scans and compare them with those obtained from various scanners with the direct measurement	Printed polylactic acid model	SSA showed low accuracy in measuring length and depth, requiring further development. However, it spent the least time scanning
31	Bellus 3D Face app	Andrews et al., 2023 ²⁴	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the trueness and precision of SSA and assess post‐processing analysis reliability	29 healthy adults	TrueDepth camera with the SSA captures facial images acceptably, with excellent precision and high repeatability. It is a cost‐effective, portable and clinically suitable alternative for facial scans
32	Bellus 3D Face app	Dallazen et al., 2023 ⁵⁹	Experimental	Comparison	To compare 2D and 3D methods used in post‐operative oedema assessment following surgical removal of the third molar	20 healthy adults	Facial scans from smartphones and photogrammetry showed no difference with moderate correlation. Scans accurately outline and demonstrate pre‐ and post‐oedema differences objectively
33	Bellus 3D Face app, Heges, Capture, Scandy Pro, Trnio	Dzelzkaleja et al., 2021 ⁶⁰	Experimental	Comparison	To find and test SSA that are suitable for 3D face scanning purposes	2 healthy adults	SSA have room for improvement in both software and hardware, as they currently vary in their approaches and all have some limitations
34	Bellus 3D Face app, Capture	D‘Ettorre et al., 2022 ⁶¹	Experimental	Comparison	To compare 3D facial scans obtained using two TrueDepth system‐supported SSA and stereophotogrammetry‐based device	40 healthy adults	SSA with TrueDepth sensors show promising accuracy with longer acquisition times than stereophotogrammetry but are portable and cost‐effective
35	Bellus 3D Face app, Scandy Pro, Heges	Loy et al., 2023 ⁶²	Experimental	Comparison	To investigate the accuracy 3D facial scanning SSA compared to professional scanner	A mannequin head	SSA had comparable trueness, precision and reproducibility to professional scanners, with no clinically significant differences for craniomaxillofacial purposes, with mostly errors less than 1 mm
36	Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro	Amezua et al., 2021 ⁶³	Experimental	Workflow, Comparison	To assess the impact of the facial scanning method on the precision and repeatability of a virtual facebow record technique	An adult with full dentate, class I occlusion and mesoprosopic facial form	SSA offer advantages such as affordability, ease of use, minimal patient disturbing and shorter scanning times. But structured‐light devices give better accuracy, significantly improving virtual facebow record repeatability
37	Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro	Liu et al., 2021 ²⁵	Experimental	Comparison	To compare the trueness and precision of Bellus 3D and 3dMD with each other and with direct anthropometry	A mannequin head	SSA could be clinically accepted as a substitute, as the mean difference between the commercial scanner is submillimeter, with clinically acceptable trueness for diagnosis and treatment planning, and good repeatability
38	Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro	Piedra‐Cascón et al., 2020 ²²	Experimental	Research tool	To evaluate the accuracy of a dual‐structured light facial scanner and to measure the interexaminer variability	10 healthy adults with complete dentate	Integrated SSA dual‐structured light scanner is non‐invasive, accurate, reproducible, with relatively high precision, and clinically acceptable for treatment planning purposes
39	Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro	Friscia et al., 2022 ⁶⁴	Experimental	Research tool	To evaluate the efficacy of Hilotherapy face mask in reducing facial oedema after orthognathic surgery	74 healthy adults with Class III undergoing orthognathic surgery	SSA is an accurate, low‐cost, smart, fast, repeatable and a self‐made tool for face scanning
40	Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro	Revilla‐León et al., 2020 ⁶⁵	Experimental	Research tool	To analyse the perceptions regarding disparities of the maxillary dental midline and the occlusal plane when analysing on 2D and 3D simulations	A healthy adult	SSA can be used to create 3D model which obtained overall higher ratings than 2D images
41	Bellus 3D ProFace, Heges	Beretta et al., 2022 ⁶⁶	Case report	Workflow	To demonstrate how technology and diagnostic imaging enable 3D integration of face scan and intraoral scan	Children	TrueDepth technology is an effective substitute, as smartphone are portable, cheaper, more accessible user‐friendly for all clinicians
42	Bellus 3D ProFace, Heges	Kamath et al., 2022 ⁶⁷	Experimental	Comparison	To reduce skin mask pressure, mask strap tension and evaluate several facial scanning technologies	14 infants with level II and III NICU	SSA was mobile, non‐invasive, low cost, rapid and accurate tool to develop accurate 3D models
43	Bellus FaceMaker, Heges, Scandy Pro, Scaniverse, Trnio	Van Lint et al., 2023 ⁶⁸	Experimental	Comparison	To compare smartphone SSA portable photogrammetry‐based device	50 healthy adults	Applications on smartphones or tablets can be valuable in the field of facial imaging. Some SSA offer clinical scanning possibilities
44	Capture	Campomanes et al., 2022 ⁶⁹	Experimental	Comparison	To describe a method for using a smartphone scanning application to capture facial anatomy for custom glasses design	3 Children with craniosynostosis, hydrocephalus and microtia (for comparison)	A method using SSA can provide a non‐invasive, portable, low‐cost solution for 3D surface scanning for patients with craniofacial anomalies
45	Heges	Bartella et al., 2023 ⁷⁰	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate two face scanning SSA can produce sufficiently accurate data for clinical analysis	50 healthy adults	smartphone‐based device was more user friendly and appear to be adequate for patient education despite errors of up to 3 mm
46	Heges	Li et al., 2022 ⁷¹	Experimental	Workflow	To investigate the trueness and precision of virtual facebow records using a smartphone as a 3D face scanner	2 healthy adults with full dentition	The use of SSA in dental practice shows promise as it accurately captures maxilla position with deviations around 1 mm in linear distance and 1° in angulation
47	Heges	Unkovskiy et al., 2022 ⁷²	Experimental	Comparison	To compare a stationary scanner, portable extraoral structured light scanner, intraoral scanners and smartphone‐based scanner	4 models with detailed replicas of nasal, orbital, auricular defects, and intact auricle	SSA showed clinically acceptable trueness but lower precision. The use of SSA in maxillofacial rehabilitation should be approached with caution due to inconsistent accuracy
48	Heges	Xia et al., 2023 ⁷⁹	Proof of concept	Workflow	To propose smartphone‐based registration system for infant full‐head scan	An infant	SSA are low‐cost system which can achieve the full‐head 3D scan within 2 s
49	Heges	You et al., 2021 ⁷³	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe workflow for individualized 3D printed ear model fabrication	A patient with microtia	SSA has the distinct advantages of low cost, wide availability and portability, raising the possibility for clinicians to incorporate 3D printing in various clinical applications
50	MeiXuan	Chong et al., 2021 ⁷⁴	Experimental	Comparison	To evaluate the validity and reproducibility of self‐developing imaging system	20 healthy adults	Self‐developed application was proven to be accurate and reliable for clinical use
51	Metascan	Krogager et al., 2023 ⁸⁰	Proof of concept	Workflow	To adapt and test the technique for visualization of facial nerve's anatomy and analyse feasibility and limitation	A cadaver	Empirical testing and optimization of light condition, type of equipment, and post‐processing software are required to optimal use SSA
52	Polycam	Inal et al., 2023 ⁸¹	Proof of concept	Workflow	To describe technique for the use of SSA for scanning an ear to fabricate a 3D‐printed cast of auricular prosthesis	An adult patient	SSA are a cost‐effective way to obtain 3D data. Although they provide less accurate data than face scanner images, they can facilitate workflow
53	Scandy Pro	Rudy et al., 2020 ⁷⁵	Experimental	Comparison	To compare SSA with portable 3D camera used in plastic surgery	16 healthy adults	The precision of smartphone‐based scanners was superior to that of other portable 3D scanners, offering repeatable reliability at a relatively negligible cost
54	Scandy Pro	To et al., 2023 ⁷⁶	Experimental	Comparison	To compare self‐developing imaging system with commercial scanners	A mannequin head	There is clinically similarly significant accurate performance between SSA, self‐developed systems and commercial scanner
55	Tap tap tap	Nightingale et al., 2020 ³⁴	Experimental	Comparison	To quantitatively compare scans captured by inexperienced operators	20 healthy adults without scar	SSA offer a potential alternative for use in clinical practice with ease of use for new operators
56	Trnio 3D scanner	Maiese et al., 2022 ⁸²	Proof of concept	Workflow	To introduce a new diagnostic tool for 3D autopsy report	10 cadavers	SSA can provide trustworthy 3D models in terms of quality and measurement accuracy. It preserves 3D information, which is useful, especially in cases with traumatic lesions

Open in a new tab

Note: Inline graphic : Dentistry, : Forensics, : Medicine, : Neurology, : Ophthalmology, : Plastic surgery.

Abbreviations: 2D, two‐dimensional; 3D, three‐dimensional; BMI, body mass index; CAD, computer‐aided design; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; SSA, smartphone scanning applications.

Regarding the 28 studies comparing SSA in Table 3, ² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ⁴¹ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ a majority of them compared smartphone applications with commercial scanners based on the principle of stereophotogrammetry (static n = 9 ² , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ⁴⁷ , ⁵⁴ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁷⁷ and portable n = 5 ⁴¹ , ⁶⁸ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ ). Smartphones and tablets based on the iOS operating system were predominantly used, with the iPhone X (Apple Inc., CA, USA) being the most commonly employed device. Applications from Bellus 3D Inc. were the frequently utilized in 21 studies. ² , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ⁴¹ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁷⁷ The results indicated that smartphone applications offer cost‐effective alternatives, with properties ranging from limited to acceptable when compared to commercial scanners.

TABLE 3.

Data extracted from the comparative studies.

Author, year	Control		Test		Conclusion
Author, year	Device used (hardware)	Principle	Device used (hardware)	Application (software)	Conclusion
Akan et al., 2021 ³³	3dMD Face System	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Images acquiring with SSA show a partial similarity with the images acquired with 3dMD
Amezua et al., 2021 ⁶³	Artec Space Spider	Portable structured light	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA), MediaPad M3 (Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd, Shenzhen, China	Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Accurate facial scanning significantly improved the repeatability of the virtual facebow record technique
Amornvit and Sanohkan, 2019 ²	EinScan Pro, EinScan Pro 2X Plus, Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid	Portable structured light, Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	3D scanner accuracy depends on scan length, pattern and technology
Andrews et al., 2023 ²⁴	3dMD Face System	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone 11 Pro (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	SSA can provide 3D model with acceptable accuracy and excellent precision
Bartella et al., 2023 ⁷⁰	Nikon D5500	Portable stereophotogrammetry	iPad Pro 3 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Heges 3D scanner (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena)	Photogrammetry demonstrated greater accuracy while SSA are more user friendly
Campomanes et al., 2022 ⁶⁹	Not mentioned	Magnetic resonance imaging	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Capture (Standard Cyborg Inc, CA, USA)	Measurements from SSA and MRI did not consistently differ
Chong et al., 2021 ⁷⁴	Vectra H1	Portable stereophotogrammetry	iPad/iPhone (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	MeiXuan (Beijing, China)	The developing 3D facial scanning system is validated to enable patients to take 3D images on their own
D‘Ettorre et al., 2022 ⁶¹	3dMDtrio	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone Xs (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Capture (Standard Cyborg Inc, CA, USA)	SSA need precision and compliance, with cost and portability advantages
Dallazen et al., 2023 ⁵⁹	Not applicable	Not applicable	iPhone 11 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Digital methods demonstrated greater homogeneity than manual method
Dzelzkaleja et al., 2021 ⁶⁰	Not applicable	Not applicable	iPhone Xr (Apple Inc. CA, USA), Honour 20 (Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd, Shenzhen, China)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Heges 3D scanner (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena), Capture (Standard Cyborg Inc, CA, USA), Scandy Pro (Scandy Inc, LA, USA), Trnio (Trnio Inc, USA), 3D Scanner Pro (Laan Labs, NY, USA)	Each SSA offered varying accuracy, pricing, user‐friendliness and scanning times
Elbashti et al., 2019 ²³	Vivid 910	Laser scanner	iPhone 6 s (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	123D Catch (Autodesk, CA, USA)	Data acquisition with an SSA is not as accurate as commercially available laser scanning
Gallardo et al., 2023 ⁵⁰	ATOS Core	Portable structured light	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), ReCap Photo (Autodesk Inc, CA, USA)	Both systems produced clinically acceptable 3D face models for aesthetic restoration planning
Kamath et al., 2022 ⁶⁷	Anaheim, Artec Space Spider	Photogrammetry, portable structured light	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D ProFace (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Heges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena)	SSA are low‐cost, safe, rapid and accurate for preterm infant facial topography
Kühlman et al., 2023 ⁴⁵	Not applicable	Not applicable	iPad Pro 4 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Dental Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Capture (Standard Cyborg Inc, CA, USA), Heges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena), Scandy Pro (Scandy, LA, USA)	Trueness and precision of SSA were clinically acceptable for diagnosis and treatment planning
Lin et al., 2023 ³⁸	Not applicable	Not applicable	iPhone 13 Pro (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Dental Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Heges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena)	The performance of both SSA in virtual mounting was similar
Liu et al., 2021 ²⁵	3dMD Face System	Static sterophotogrammetry	Samsung Galaxy Table 3 (Samsung, Suwon, South Korea)	Bellus 3D Face Camera Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	The trueness of each scanner was clinically acceptable for diagnosis and treatment planning
Loy et al., 2023 ⁶²	3dMD Face System, Vectra H2, Artec EVA	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone 12 Pro (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Scandy Pro (Scandy, LA, USA), Hedges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena)	SSA had comparable trueness, precision and reproducibility to professional systems
Mai et al., 2020 ⁵⁴	Canon EOS 100D	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Integration accuracy relied on markers and there was no difference between devices with references
Mai et al., 2022 ⁴⁷	Canon EOS 100D, MetraSCAN‐R	Static sterophotogrammetry, portable laser scanner	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Integration accuracy was enhanced with the use of extraoral markers and stereophotogrammetry system
Nightingale et al., 2020 ³⁴	Artec Space Spider	Portable structured light	iPhone 8 s (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Tap tap tap (LLC, USA)	SSA offers fast, noninvasive, cost‐effective scanning with quick operator learning
Pelliterri et al., 2021 ⁴¹	Face hunter facial scanners	Portable stereophotogrammetry	Not mentioned	Bellus 3D Dental Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Facial scan provides excellent analytical tool for clinical evaluation
Rudy et al., 2020 ⁷⁵	Vectra H1	Portable stereophotogrammetry	iPhone X (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Scandy Pro (Scandy, LA, USA)	SSA is accurate and precise to within 0.5 mm compared to commercial scanner
Singh et al., 2023 ⁷⁷	3dMD Face System	Static sterophotogrammetry	iPhone 12 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Face app (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	SSA have limited clinical applications specific to macro‐proportional áreas such as central and flat facial regions
Thurzo et al., 2022 ⁴⁴	Not mentioned	Cone beam computed tomography	Not mentioned	Bellus 3D Dental Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	Significant differences over 3 mm in facial regions limit TrueDepth sensor clinical use
To et al., 2023 ⁷⁶	EinScan Pro 2X Plus, Arc‐7	Portable structured light	iPhone 11 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Scandy Pro (Scandy, LA, USA)	Self‐developing system competes well with mid‐cost scanners in terms of accuracy, portability and affordability
Unkovskiy et al., 2022 ⁷²	Artec Space Spider	Portable structured light	iPhone 11 Pro (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Heges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena)	SSA showed clinically acceptable trueness but inferior precision
Van Lint et al, 2023 ⁶⁸	Vectra H1	Portable stereophotogrammetry	iPad Pro (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Heges (Marek Simonik, Saint Helena), Bellus Face App (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA), Scandy Pro (Scandy, LA, USA), Scaniverse (Toolbox Al, Inc, CA, USA), Trnio (Trnio Inc, USA)	Bellus, Trnio and Scaniverse s are not significantly different from the gold standard
Wang et al., 2022 ⁴⁹	Arc‐7, EinScan Pro 2X Plus	Portable structured light	iPad Pro 2020 (Apple Inc. CA, USA)	Bellus 3D Dental Pro (Bellus 3D, Inc, CA, USA)	All systems are reliable 3D facial scan, but structured light scanner is recommended for higher trueness

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: 3D, three‐dimensional; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SSA, smartphone scanning applications.

Regarding clinical applicability, 79% of articles focused on research in dentistry, where SSA were employed for orthodontics, restorative dentistry, prosthodontics and surgery. The most common clinical purposes were morphological analysis, SSA accuracy and performance assessment, and documenting facial changes pre‐ and post‐operatively. SSA were also integrated into digital workflows for designing prostheses and restorations. Most studies concluded that, although SSA do not always achieve the precision of commercial scanners, they offer clinically acceptable results and can provide a high degree of trueness and repeatability, while being cost‐effective and user‐friendly. The remaining studies (21%) were focused on medical purposes, with SSA being employed in fields such as forensics, ophthalmology, neurology, plastic surgery and non‐specific medical specialties. Most studies concluded in this category concluded that SSA applications are practical and efficient choice for creating 3D models in clinical settings, as they are considered user‐friendly, cost‐effective, non‐invasive and could be integrated into digital workflows with reliability comparable to commercial scanners.

4. DISCUSSION

Although commercial scanners have existed for decades, their application remains largely confined to advanced medical centres due to various constraints. In this context, this hybrid review aims to explore the balance between scientific knowledge and clinical needs. Our results reveal the presence of several SSA in the market with potential for face scanning, 75% of which were designed for the iOS operating system. This system receives more frequent updates compared to those on the Android system, potentially influencing users' choices. The possibility of downloading the SSA and using a trial phase could also impact decision‐making, allowing users to assess performance before committing to a purchase or subscription.

In 2022, in compliance with the European Union (EU) protection policy, particularly the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), all applications submitted or updated in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store were required to declare privacy data collection. This regulation significantly impacted the dynamics and potential termination of SSA sales. ⁸³ , ⁸⁴ According to our results, it is possible to obtain facial scans with SSA without collecting facial images by selecting SSA that clearly declare no data collection, particularly in updates after 2022. This was clearly stated in 32% of the available applications observed in this study. Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize that this information regarding no data collection is declared by developers, and thus, it cannot be fully verified. Furthermore, SSA may be classified as medical devices based on their intended use, falling under the Medical Device Regulation outlined in EU Regulation 2017. Developers are also required to demonstrate their legal compliance to ensure their safety and intended functionality. ⁸⁵ , ⁸⁶ This regulatory aspect could potentially explain why 11 SSA were terminated from sales and left the market, as they may have lacked proper certification and could influence the statement of purpose of the applications. None of the SSA included in this review explicitly define themselves as suitable for medical or clinical use.

The SSA reported in scientific studies were used for several clinical purposes, primarily in morphological analysis and integration into digital workflows to produce prostheses. ² , ²² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ²⁸ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁵ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ , ⁴¹ , ⁴² , ⁴³ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁶ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁸ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵¹ , ⁵² , ⁵³ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁶ , ⁵⁷ , ⁵⁸ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁴ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷¹ , ⁷² , ⁷³ , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁸¹ The diverse study populations, including both adults and children, confirm the safety and non‐invasiveness of this technology, particularly in cases where traditional methods like photogrammetry and laser scanners are unsuitable for neonatal faces. ⁶⁷ Although SSA still provide less accuracy and precision than commercial scanners, they do provide clinically acceptable trueness and repeatability. However, their potential limitation lies in depth sensitivity, especially in areas with low depth contrast such as central incisors, leading to challenges in reconstruction. ³⁸ Of course, the demand for accuracy varies across different clinical processes. The continuous development of both smartphones and applications advancements, as well as their integration into scanners have made comparative studies a focal point in exploring possible alternatives to traditional scanners. This suggests that, despite their promising capabilities, the application of SSA in clinical settings should be approached cautiously, considering factors such as GDPR compliance and obtaining the patient's consent, as facial scans inherently contain important data for identification.

For comparative studies, ² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ⁴¹ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ scanners based on stereophotogrammetry, such as the 3dMD Face System (Atlanta, GA, USA), Vectra H1‐2 (Canfield Scientific, NJ, USA), Face hunter facial scanners (Zirkonzahn GmbH, Gais, Italy), or professional cameras with post‐processing software, considered clinical standards, were commonly used as references. However, researchers choosing SSA based on the results present in the existing literature should be mindful of their dynamic nature, as these applications are rapidly updated to enhance performance and capabilities. Conversely, non‐updated or outdated SSA may become less effective and could eventually discontinue their services due to various limitations. The selection of applications may also be influenced by highly recommended SSA that appear on search engines during the research period, such as Heges, Scandy Pro, Scaniverse and Trnio. While checking online platforms provides the advantage of staying up to date, the clinical validity of these applications may not have been thoroughly validated. Overall, the conclusions from the comparative studies ² , ²³ , ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ³³ , ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ⁴¹ , ⁴⁴ , ⁴⁵ , ⁴⁷ , ⁴⁹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁴ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁶¹ , ⁶² , ⁶³ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ , ⁷² , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ suggest that SSA have the potential to be valuable tools in various clinical and diagnostic settings, offering advantages including cost‐effectiveness, portability, and user‐friendliness. Again, their accuracy and precision, exceeding 3 mm in some regions, should be carefully considered, particularly in specific clinical applications.

The limitation of this review derives from the hybrid nature of scoping reviews, combining scientifically validated information with an exploration of available SSA with potential use for oral healthcare applications. This approach, while comprehensive, may have overlooked some SSA due to the specific search terms used and their availability on search engines. Despite this, we believe the review offers valuable insights for clinicians and researchers seeking innovative, alternative approaches in patient care. Beyond the scope of this review, a notable observation is the gap between the rapid development of digital marketing in scanning technologies, smartphones, and SSA, and the gradual pace of clinical validation and publication. This gap is not a reflection of any shortcomings in research, nor is it the fault of researchers. It is rather an aspect of the pace at which scientific advancement lags behind technological development and commercialization. Nevertheless, clinical validation is crucial for further implementation in clinical settings and the review should also be re‐conducted for an update every 5 years.

5. CONCLUSION

Fifty‐two SSA currently available in the market can perform facial scanning and can be used clinically, addressing aims 1 and 2. Regarding aim 3, only 13 SSA applications have been clinically validated so far (123D Catch, 3D Creator, Bellus 3D Dental Pro, Bellus 3D Face app, Bellus 3D Face Maker, Capture, Heges, Metascan, Polycam, Scandy Pro, Scaniverse, Tap tap tap and Trnio), where only five applications are currently available (3D Creator, Metascan, Polycam, Scandy Pro and Scaniverse). These applications could be an alternative option for scanning purposes in a clinical setting, offering user‐friendliness, cost‐effectiveness and portability. Moreover, they offer clinically acceptable trueness and repeatability, while remaining non‐invasive for patients across all age ranges. However, it is crucial to note that SSA cannot yet achieve the full capabilities of commercial scanners, and further clinical validation is needed to make medical professionals aware of potential pitfalls and other limitations.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

TJ: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, final approval. XL: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, writing – review and editing, final approval. RCF: Conceptualization, methodology, interpretation, supervision, writing – review and editing, final approval. MC: Conceptualization, methodology, interpretation, supervision, writing – review and editing, final approval. RJ: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing, final approval.

FUNDING INFORMATION

Self‐funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Since the current study is a technical and a scoping review, ethical approval was not required as it does not involve direct human or animal subjects.

Supporting information

Table S1.

OCR-27-65-s001.docx^{(16.9KB, docx)}

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge Thomas Vandendriessche, Chayenne Van Meel, Norin Hamouda, and Krizia Tuand, the biomedical reference librarians of the KU Leuven Libraries – 2Bergen – learning Centre Désiré Collen (Leuven, Belgium), for their assistance in conducting the systematic literature search. Additionally, thanks to Hendrik De Beuckeleer and Lucas De Caluwe for their assistance in initially conducting partial of the application search and trials.

Jindanil T, Xu L, Fontenele RC, Perula MCdL, Jacobs R. Smartphone applications for facial scanning: A technical and scoping review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024;27(Suppl. 2):65‐87. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12821

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article and its supplementary materials.

REFERENCES

1. Selleri L, Rijli FM. Shaping faces: genetic and epigenetic control of craniofacial morphogenesis. Nat Rev Genet. 2023;24:610‐626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Amornvit P, Sanohkan S. The accuracy of digital face scans obtained from 3D scanners: an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:5061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Dixit I, Kennedy S, Piemontesi J, Kennedy B, Krebs C. Which tool is best: 3D scanning or photogrammetry–it depends on the task. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1120:107‐119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Oh J, Han JJ, Ryu SY, et al. Clinical and cephalometric analysis of facial soft tissue. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:e431‐e438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Lee JD, Nguyen O, Lin YC, et al. Facial scanners in dentistry: an overview. Prosthesis. 2022;4:664‐678. [Google Scholar]
6. Hennessy RJ, McLearie S, Kinsella A, Waddington JL. Facial surface analysis by 3D laser scanning and geometric morphometrics in relation to sexual dimorphism in cerebral‐craniofacial morphogenesis and cognitive function. J Anat. 2005;207:283‐295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, et al. Three‐dimensional recording of the human face with a 3D laser scanner. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:1193‐1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Ayaz I, Shaheen E, Aly M, et al. Accuracy and reliability of 2‐dimensional photography versus 3‐dimensional soft tissue imaging. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020;50:15‐22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Germec‐Cakan D, Canter HI, Nur B, Arun T. Comparison of facial soft tissue measurements on three‐dimensional images and models obtained with different methods. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:1393‐1399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Bock M, Siebert JP. Three‐dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2002;17:318‐330. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Secher JJ, Darvann TA, Pinholt EM. Accuracy and reproducibility of the DAVID SLS‐2 scanner in three‐dimensional facial imaging. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1662‐1670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Antonacci D, Caponio VCA, Troiano G, Pompeo MG, Gianfreda F, Canullo L. Facial scanning technologies in the era of digital workflow: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2022;67:321‐336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Gibelli D, Dolci C, Cappella A, Sforza C. Reliability of optical devices for three‐dimensional facial anatomy description: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:1092‐1106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Sigaux N, Ganry L, Mojallal A, Breton P, Bouletreau P. Stereophotogrammetry and facial surgery: principles, applications and prospects. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2018;6:62‐68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Dindaroglu F, Kutlu P, Duran GS, Gorgulu S, Aslan E. Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 2016;86:487‐494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Heike CL, Upson K, Stuhaug E, Weinberg SM. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head Face Med. 2010;6:18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. de Menezes N, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3‐dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2129‐2135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Georgopoulos A, Ioannidis C, Valanis A. Assessing the Performance of a Structured Light Scanner. Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences; 2010:38. [Google Scholar]
19. Ye H, Lv L, Liu Y, Liu Y, Zhou Y. Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of two different 3D face‐scanning systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:213‐218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Modabber A, Peters F, Kniha K, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of a mobile and a stationary system for three‐dimensional facial scanning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44:1719‐1724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bakirman T, Gumusay MU, Reis HC, et al. Comparison of low cost 3D structured light scanners for face modeling. Appl Opt. 2017;56:985‐992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Piedra‐Cascon W, Meyer MJ, Methani MM, Revilla‐Leon M. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of a dual‐structured light facial scanner and interexaminer reliability. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:567‐574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Elbashti ME, Sumita YI, Aswehlee AM, Seelaus R. Smartphone application as a low‐cost alternative for digitizing facial defects: is it accurate enough for clinical application? Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32:541‐543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Andrews J, Alwafi A, Bichu YM, Pliska BT, Mostafa N, Zou BS. Validation of three‐dimensional facial imaging captured with smartphone‐based photogrammetry application in comparison to stereophotogrammetry system. Heliyon. 2023;9:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Liu J, Zhang C, Cai R, Yao Y, Zhao Z, Liao W. Accuracy of 3‐dimensional stereophotogrammetry: comparison of the 3dMD and Bellus3D facial scanning systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160:862‐871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Xu X, Seijo‐Rabina A, Awad A, et al. Smartphone‐enabled 3D printing of medicines. Int J Pharm. 2021;609:121199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Scquizzato T, Landoni G, Bordoni G, Zaraca L, Monti G, Zangrillo A. AED training with a 3D‐printed model and a smartphone app. Resuscitation. 2021;169:95‐96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Thurzo A, Urbanova W, Neuschlova I, Paouris D, Cverha M. Use of optical scanning and 3D printing to fabricate customized appliances for patients with craniofacial disorders. Semin Orthod. 2022;28:92‐99. [Google Scholar]
29. Taeger J, Bischoff S, Hagen S, Rak K. Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app‐based grading of facial movement disorders: development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9:e19346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. LeCompte MC, Chung SA, McKee MM, et al. Simple and rapid creation of customized 3‐dimensional printed bolus using iPhone X true depth camera. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9:e417‐e421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. An P, Gao Y, Ma T, et al. LiDAR‐camera system extrinsic calibration by establishing virtual point correspondences from pseudo calibration objects. Opt Express. 2020;28:18261‐18282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. An P, Ma T, Yu K, et al. Geometric calibration for LiDAR‐camera system fusing 3D‐2D and 3D‐3D point correspondences. Opt Express. 2020;28:2122‐2141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Akan B, Akan E, Sahan AO, Kalak M. Evaluation of 3D face‐scan images obtained by stereophotogrammetry and smartphone camera. Int Orthod. 2021;19:669‐678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Nightingale RC, Ross MT, Allenby MC, Woodruff MA, Powell SK. A method for economical smartphone‐based clinical 3D facial scanning. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:818‐825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Salazar‐Gamarra R, Seelaus R, da Silva JV, da Silva AM, Dib LL. Monoscopic photogrammetry to obtain 3D models by a mobile device: a method for making facial prostheses. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Daher R, Ardu S, Vjero O, Krejci I. 3D digital smile design with a Mobile phone and intraoral optical scanner. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018;39:e5‐e8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Li Q, Bi M, Yang K, Liu W. The creation of a virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion and its application in esthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126:14‐18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Lin H, Pan Y, Wei X, Wang Y, Yu H, Cheng H. Comparison of the performance of various virtual articulator mounting procedures: a self‐controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:4017‐4028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Oancea L, Burlibasa M, Petre AE, Panaitescu E, Cristache CM. Predictive model for occlusal vertical dimension determination and digital preservation with three‐dimensional facial scanning. Appl Sci. 2020;10:7890. [Google Scholar]
40. Pan Y, Xi Q, Meng J, Chen X, Wu G. Development of a customized mask retainer for improving the fit performance of surgical masks. PLoS One. 2022;17:12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Pellitteri F, Brucculeri L, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Comparison of the accuracy of digital face scans obtained by two different scanners. Angle Orthod. 2021;91:641‐649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Bollero P, Pompeo MG, Miele G, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 1: free vs guided face scan protocol. J Dent. 2022;116:103881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Pompeo MG, Antonacci D, Bollero P, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 2: management of multiple face scans and alignment predictability. J Dent. 2022;122:104123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Thurzo A, Strunga M, Havlinova R, et al. Smartphone‐based facial scanning as a viable tool for facially driven orthodontics? Sensors (Basel). 2022;22:7752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Kühlman DC, Almuzian M, Coppini C, Alzoubi EE. Accuracy and reproducibility of tablet‐based applications for three‐dimensional facial scanning: an in‐vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2023;135:104533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Caputo A, Rubino E, Marcianò A, et al. Three‐dimensional facial swelling evaluation of piezo‐electric vs conventional drilling bur surgery of impacted lower third molar: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Mai HN, Lee DH. Effects of artificial extraoral markers on accuracy of three‐dimensional dentofacial image integration: smartphone face scan versus stereophotogrammetry. J Pers Med. 2022;12:490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Swennen GRJ, Pottel L, Haers PE. Custom‐made 3D‐printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:673‐677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Wang C, Shi YF, Xiong Q, Xie PJ, Wu JH, Liu WC. Trueness of one stationary and two mobile systems for three‐dimensional facial scanning. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35:350‐356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Gallardo YNR, Salazar‐Gamarra R, Bohner L, De Oliveira JI, Dib LL, Sesma N. Evaluation of the 3D error of 2 face‐scanning systems: an in vitro analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:630‐636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Asutay AC, Turkyilmaz I, Benli M, Martinez JL. Transforming smiles using an intraoral scanner and face scan application on smartphone. J Dent Sci. 2022;17:1413‐1414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Granata S, Giberti L, Vigolo P, Stellini E, Di Fiore A. Incorporating a facial scanner into the digital workflow: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:781‐785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Lo Russo L, Di Gioia C, Salamini A, Guida L. Integrating intraoral, perioral, and facial scans into the design of digital dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:584‐588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Mai HN, Lee DH. The effect of perioral scan and artificial skin markers on the accuracy of virtual dentofacial integration: stereophotogrammetry versus smartphone three‐dimensional face‐scanning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18:229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Abbate V, Orabona GD, Seidita F, et al. Facial soft tissue ptosis: a quantitative analysis using 3d facial scan app for iPhone. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023;22:75‐82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Alazzam A, Aljarba S, Alshomer F, Alawirdhi B. The utility of smartphone 3D scanning, open‐sourced computer‐aided design, and desktop 3D printing in the surgical planning of Microtia reconstruction: a step by step guide and concept assessment. JPRAS Open. 2021;30:17‐22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Alhazmi B, Alshomer F, Alazzam A, Shehabeldin A, Almeshal O, Kalaskar DM. Digital workflow for fabrication of bespoke facemask in burn rehabilitation with smartphone 3D scanner and desktop 3D printing: clinical case study. 3D printing in. Medicine. 2022;8:12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Alisha KH, Batra P, Raghavan S, Sharma K, Talwar A. A new frame for orienting infants with cleft lip and palate during 3‐dimensional facial scanning. Cleft Palate‐Craniofac J. 2022;59:946‐950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Dallazen E, Baccaro GC, Santos AMS, et al. Comparison of manual (2D) and digital (3D) methods in the assessment of simulated facial edema. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;81:1146‐1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Dzelzkalēja L, Knēts JK, Rozenovskis N, Sīlītis A. Mobile apps for 3D face scanning. In: Arai, K. (Ed.), Intelligent Systems with Applications. IntelliSys 2021, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer. 2022;295:34‐50. 10.1007/978-3-030-82196-8_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
61. D'Ettorre G, Farronato M, Candida E, Quinzi V, Grippaudo C. A comparison between stereophotogrammetry and smartphone structured light technology for three‐dimensional face scanning. Angle Orthod. 2022;92:358‐363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Loy RCH, Liew MKM, Yong CW, Wong RCW. Validation of low‐cost mobile phone applications and comparison with professional imaging systems for three‐dimensional facial imaging: a pilot study. J Dent. 2023;137:104676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Amezua X, Iturrate M, Garikano X, Solaberrieta E. Analysis of the influence of the facial scanning method on the transfer accuracy of a maxillary digital scan to a 3D face scan for a virtual facebow technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;130:1024‐1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Friscia M, Seidita F, Committeri U, et al. Efficacy of hilotherapy face mask in improving the trend of edema after orthognathic surgery: a 3D analysis of the face using a facial scan app for iPhone. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26:485‐490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Revilla‐León M, Campbell HE, Meyer MJ, Umorin M, Sones A, Zandinejad A. Esthetic dental perception comparisons between 2D‐ and 3D‐simulated dental discrepancies. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:763‐773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Beretta M, Canova FF, Zaffarano L, Gianolio A. Face scan for Ceph 3D: a green way for diagnosis in children. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2022;23:201‐203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Kamath AA, Kamath MJ, Ekici S, et al. Workflow to develop 3D designed personalized neonatal CPAP masks using iPhone structured light facial scanning. 3D Print Med. 2022;8:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Van Lint L, Christiaens L, Stroo V, et al. Accuracy comparison of 3D face scans obtained by portable Stereophotogrammetry and smartphone applications. J Med Biol Eng. 2023;43:550‐560. [Google Scholar]
69. Campomanes AGD, Meer E, Clarke M, Brodie FL. Using a smartphone 3‐dimensional surface imaging technique to manufacture custom 3‐dimensional‐printed eyeglasses. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140:966‐973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Bartella AK, Laser J, Kamal M, et al. Accuracy of low‐cost alternative facial scanners: a prospective cohort study. Oral Maxillofac Surg‐Heidelberg. 2023;27:33‐41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Li J, Chen Z, Decker AM, et al. Trueness and precision of economical smartphone‐based virtual Facebow records. J Prosthodont: Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2022;31:22‐29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Unkovskiy A, Spintzyk S, Beuer F, Huettig F, Röhler A, Kraemer‐Fernandez P. Accuracy of capturing nasal, orbital, and auricular defects with extra‐ and intraoral optical scanners and smartphone: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;117:103916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. You P, Liu YCC, Silva RC. Fabrication of 3D models for microtia reconstruction using smartphone‐based technology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022;131:373‐378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Chong Y, Liu X, Shi M, Huang J, Yu N, Long X. Three‐dimensional facial scanner in the hands of patients: validation of a novel application on iPad/iPhone for three‐dimensional imaging. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:1115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Rudy HL, Wake N, Yee J, Garfein ES, Tepper OM. Three‐dimensional facial scanning at the fingertips of patients and surgeons: accuracy and precision testing of iPhone X three‐dimensional scanner. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146:1407‐1417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. To JK , Vu AN, Ediriwickrema LS, Browne AW. Comparison of a custom photogrammetry for anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other low‐ cost facial scanning devices. 2023.
77. Singh P, Hsung RTC, Ajmera DH, Leung YY, McGrath C, Gu M. Can smartphones be used for routine dental clinical application? A validation study for using smartphone‐generated 3D facial images. J Dent. 2023;139:104775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Popov T, Fierz FC, Bockisch CJ, Weber KP. Using smartphone exophthalmometry to measure eyeball protrusion. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141:974‐981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Xia Y, Wang K, Billing A, Billing M, Cooper RJ, Zhao H. Low‐cost, smartphone‐based instant three‐dimensional registration system for infant functional near‐infrared spectroscopy applications. Neurophotonics. 2023;10:46601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Krogager ME, Fugleholm K, Mathiesen TI, Spiriev T. Simplified easy‐accessible smartphone‐based photogrammetry for 3‐dimensional anatomy presentation exemplified with a photorealistic cadaver‐based model of the intracranial and extracranial course of the facial nerve. Ope Neurosurg. 2023;25:e71‐e77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. İnal CB, Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca NS. Using a smartphone three dimensional scanning application (Polycam) to three dimensionally print an ear cast: a technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2023. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Maiese A, Manetti AC, Ciallella C, Fineschi V. The introduction of a new diagnostic tool in forensic pathology: LiDAR sensor for 3D autopsy documentation. Biosensors (Basel). 2022;12:132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. European Parliamentary Research Service . Understanding EU data protection policy. 2023. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698898/EPRS_BRI(2022)698898_EN.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2023.
84. Privacy and Information Security Law Blog . Apple and google announce effective dates of new mobile app privacy requirements. 2021. https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2021/11/08/apple‐and‐google‐announce‐effective‐dates‐of‐new‐mobile‐app‐privacy‐requirements/ Accessed December 27, 2023.
85. Official Journal of the European Union . REGULATION (EU) 2017/745 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. 2017. https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745. Accessed December 27, 2023.
86. European Medicines Agency . Medical Devices, in European Medicines Agency. 2023. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human‐regulatory‐overview/medical‐devices. Accessed December 27, 2023

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1.

OCR-27-65-s001.docx^{(16.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article and its supplementary materials.

[ocr12821-bib-0001] 1. Selleri L, Rijli FM. Shaping faces: genetic and epigenetic control of craniofacial morphogenesis. Nat Rev Genet. 2023;24:610‐626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0002] 2. Amornvit P, Sanohkan S. The accuracy of digital face scans obtained from 3D scanners: an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:5061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0003] 3. Dixit I, Kennedy S, Piemontesi J, Kennedy B, Krebs C. Which tool is best: 3D scanning or photogrammetry–it depends on the task. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1120:107‐119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0004] 4. Oh J, Han JJ, Ryu SY, et al. Clinical and cephalometric analysis of facial soft tissue. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:e431‐e438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0005] 5. Lee JD, Nguyen O, Lin YC, et al. Facial scanners in dentistry: an overview. Prosthesis. 2022;4:664‐678. [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0006] 6. Hennessy RJ, McLearie S, Kinsella A, Waddington JL. Facial surface analysis by 3D laser scanning and geometric morphometrics in relation to sexual dimorphism in cerebral‐craniofacial morphogenesis and cognitive function. J Anat. 2005;207:283‐295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0007] 7. Kovacs L, Zimmermann A, Brockmann G, et al. Three‐dimensional recording of the human face with a 3D laser scanner. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:1193‐1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0008] 8. Ayaz I, Shaheen E, Aly M, et al. Accuracy and reliability of 2‐dimensional photography versus 3‐dimensional soft tissue imaging. Imaging Sci Dent. 2020;50:15‐22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0009] 9. Germec‐Cakan D, Canter HI, Nur B, Arun T. Comparison of facial soft tissue measurements on three‐dimensional images and models obtained with different methods. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21:1393‐1399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0010] 10. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT, Bock M, Siebert JP. Three‐dimensional imaging in orthognathic surgery: the clinical application of a new method. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2002;17:318‐330. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0011] 11. Secher JJ, Darvann TA, Pinholt EM. Accuracy and reproducibility of the DAVID SLS‐2 scanner in three‐dimensional facial imaging. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:1662‐1670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0012] 12. Antonacci D, Caponio VCA, Troiano G, Pompeo MG, Gianfreda F, Canullo L. Facial scanning technologies in the era of digital workflow: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2022;67:321‐336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0013] 13. Gibelli D, Dolci C, Cappella A, Sforza C. Reliability of optical devices for three‐dimensional facial anatomy description: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:1092‐1106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0014] 14. Sigaux N, Ganry L, Mojallal A, Breton P, Bouletreau P. Stereophotogrammetry and facial surgery: principles, applications and prospects. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2018;6:62‐68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0015] 15. Dindaroglu F, Kutlu P, Duran GS, Gorgulu S, Aslan E. Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry. Angle Orthod. 2016;86:487‐494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0016] 16. Heike CL, Upson K, Stuhaug E, Weinberg SM. 3D digital stereophotogrammetry: a practical guide to facial image acquisition. Head Face Med. 2010;6:18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0017] 17. de Menezes N, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3‐dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2129‐2135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0018] 18. Georgopoulos A, Ioannidis C, Valanis A. Assessing the Performance of a Structured Light Scanner. Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences; 2010:38. [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0019] 19. Ye H, Lv L, Liu Y, Liu Y, Zhou Y. Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of two different 3D face‐scanning systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:213‐218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0020] 20. Modabber A, Peters F, Kniha K, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of a mobile and a stationary system for three‐dimensional facial scanning. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44:1719‐1724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0021] 21. Bakirman T, Gumusay MU, Reis HC, et al. Comparison of low cost 3D structured light scanners for face modeling. Appl Opt. 2017;56:985‐992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0022] 22. Piedra‐Cascon W, Meyer MJ, Methani MM, Revilla‐Leon M. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of a dual‐structured light facial scanner and interexaminer reliability. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:567‐574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0023] 23. Elbashti ME, Sumita YI, Aswehlee AM, Seelaus R. Smartphone application as a low‐cost alternative for digitizing facial defects: is it accurate enough for clinical application? Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32:541‐543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0024] 24. Andrews J, Alwafi A, Bichu YM, Pliska BT, Mostafa N, Zou BS. Validation of three‐dimensional facial imaging captured with smartphone‐based photogrammetry application in comparison to stereophotogrammetry system. Heliyon. 2023;9:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0025] 25. Liu J, Zhang C, Cai R, Yao Y, Zhao Z, Liao W. Accuracy of 3‐dimensional stereophotogrammetry: comparison of the 3dMD and Bellus3D facial scanning systems with one another and with direct anthropometry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160:862‐871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0026] 26. Xu X, Seijo‐Rabina A, Awad A, et al. Smartphone‐enabled 3D printing of medicines. Int J Pharm. 2021;609:121199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0027] 27. Scquizzato T, Landoni G, Bordoni G, Zaraca L, Monti G, Zangrillo A. AED training with a 3D‐printed model and a smartphone app. Resuscitation. 2021;169:95‐96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0028] 28. Thurzo A, Urbanova W, Neuschlova I, Paouris D, Cverha M. Use of optical scanning and 3D printing to fabricate customized appliances for patients with craniofacial disorders. Semin Orthod. 2022;28:92‐99. [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0029] 29. Taeger J, Bischoff S, Hagen S, Rak K. Utilization of smartphone depth mapping cameras for app‐based grading of facial movement disorders: development and feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9:e19346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0030] 30. LeCompte MC, Chung SA, McKee MM, et al. Simple and rapid creation of customized 3‐dimensional printed bolus using iPhone X true depth camera. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9:e417‐e421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0031] 31. An P, Gao Y, Ma T, et al. LiDAR‐camera system extrinsic calibration by establishing virtual point correspondences from pseudo calibration objects. Opt Express. 2020;28:18261‐18282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0032] 32. An P, Ma T, Yu K, et al. Geometric calibration for LiDAR‐camera system fusing 3D‐2D and 3D‐3D point correspondences. Opt Express. 2020;28:2122‐2141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0033] 33. Akan B, Akan E, Sahan AO, Kalak M. Evaluation of 3D face‐scan images obtained by stereophotogrammetry and smartphone camera. Int Orthod. 2021;19:669‐678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0034] 34. Nightingale RC, Ross MT, Allenby MC, Woodruff MA, Powell SK. A method for economical smartphone‐based clinical 3D facial scanning. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:818‐825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0035] 35. Salazar‐Gamarra R, Seelaus R, da Silva JV, da Silva AM, Dib LL. Monoscopic photogrammetry to obtain 3D models by a mobile device: a method for making facial prostheses. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0036] 36. Daher R, Ardu S, Vjero O, Krejci I. 3D digital smile design with a Mobile phone and intraoral optical scanner. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018;39:e5‐e8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0037] 37. Li Q, Bi M, Yang K, Liu W. The creation of a virtual dental patient with dynamic occlusion and its application in esthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126:14‐18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0038] 38. Lin H, Pan Y, Wei X, Wang Y, Yu H, Cheng H. Comparison of the performance of various virtual articulator mounting procedures: a self‐controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:4017‐4028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0039] 39. Oancea L, Burlibasa M, Petre AE, Panaitescu E, Cristache CM. Predictive model for occlusal vertical dimension determination and digital preservation with three‐dimensional facial scanning. Appl Sci. 2020;10:7890. [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0040] 40. Pan Y, Xi Q, Meng J, Chen X, Wu G. Development of a customized mask retainer for improving the fit performance of surgical masks. PLoS One. 2022;17:12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0041] 41. Pellitteri F, Brucculeri L, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Comparison of the accuracy of digital face scans obtained by two different scanners. Angle Orthod. 2021;91:641‐649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0042] 42. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Bollero P, Pompeo MG, Miele G, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 1: free vs guided face scan protocol. J Dent. 2022;116:103881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0043] 43. Raffone C, Gianfreda F, Pompeo MG, Antonacci D, Bollero P, Canullo L. Chairside virtual patient protocol. Part 2: management of multiple face scans and alignment predictability. J Dent. 2022;122:104123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0044] 44. Thurzo A, Strunga M, Havlinova R, et al. Smartphone‐based facial scanning as a viable tool for facially driven orthodontics? Sensors (Basel). 2022;22:7752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0045] 45. Kühlman DC, Almuzian M, Coppini C, Alzoubi EE. Accuracy and reproducibility of tablet‐based applications for three‐dimensional facial scanning: an in‐vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2023;135:104533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0046] 46. Caputo A, Rubino E, Marcianò A, et al. Three‐dimensional facial swelling evaluation of piezo‐electric vs conventional drilling bur surgery of impacted lower third molar: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0047] 47. Mai HN, Lee DH. Effects of artificial extraoral markers on accuracy of three‐dimensional dentofacial image integration: smartphone face scan versus stereophotogrammetry. J Pers Med. 2022;12:490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0048] 48. Swennen GRJ, Pottel L, Haers PE. Custom‐made 3D‐printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:673‐677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0049] 49. Wang C, Shi YF, Xiong Q, Xie PJ, Wu JH, Liu WC. Trueness of one stationary and two mobile systems for three‐dimensional facial scanning. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35:350‐356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0050] 50. Gallardo YNR, Salazar‐Gamarra R, Bohner L, De Oliveira JI, Dib LL, Sesma N. Evaluation of the 3D error of 2 face‐scanning systems: an in vitro analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:630‐636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0051] 51. Asutay AC, Turkyilmaz I, Benli M, Martinez JL. Transforming smiles using an intraoral scanner and face scan application on smartphone. J Dent Sci. 2022;17:1413‐1414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0052] 52. Granata S, Giberti L, Vigolo P, Stellini E, Di Fiore A. Incorporating a facial scanner into the digital workflow: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:781‐785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0053] 53. Lo Russo L, Di Gioia C, Salamini A, Guida L. Integrating intraoral, perioral, and facial scans into the design of digital dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:584‐588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0054] 54. Mai HN, Lee DH. The effect of perioral scan and artificial skin markers on the accuracy of virtual dentofacial integration: stereophotogrammetry versus smartphone three‐dimensional face‐scanning. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18:229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0055] 55. Abbate V, Orabona GD, Seidita F, et al. Facial soft tissue ptosis: a quantitative analysis using 3d facial scan app for iPhone. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023;22:75‐82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0056] 56. Alazzam A, Aljarba S, Alshomer F, Alawirdhi B. The utility of smartphone 3D scanning, open‐sourced computer‐aided design, and desktop 3D printing in the surgical planning of Microtia reconstruction: a step by step guide and concept assessment. JPRAS Open. 2021;30:17‐22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0057] 57. Alhazmi B, Alshomer F, Alazzam A, Shehabeldin A, Almeshal O, Kalaskar DM. Digital workflow for fabrication of bespoke facemask in burn rehabilitation with smartphone 3D scanner and desktop 3D printing: clinical case study. 3D printing in. Medicine. 2022;8:12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0058] 58. Alisha KH, Batra P, Raghavan S, Sharma K, Talwar A. A new frame for orienting infants with cleft lip and palate during 3‐dimensional facial scanning. Cleft Palate‐Craniofac J. 2022;59:946‐950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0059] 59. Dallazen E, Baccaro GC, Santos AMS, et al. Comparison of manual (2D) and digital (3D) methods in the assessment of simulated facial edema. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;81:1146‐1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0060] 60. Dzelzkalēja L, Knēts JK, Rozenovskis N, Sīlītis A. Mobile apps for 3D face scanning. In: Arai, K. (Ed.), Intelligent Systems with Applications. IntelliSys 2021, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer. 2022;295:34‐50. 10.1007/978-3-030-82196-8_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0061] 61. D'Ettorre G, Farronato M, Candida E, Quinzi V, Grippaudo C. A comparison between stereophotogrammetry and smartphone structured light technology for three‐dimensional face scanning. Angle Orthod. 2022;92:358‐363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0062] 62. Loy RCH, Liew MKM, Yong CW, Wong RCW. Validation of low‐cost mobile phone applications and comparison with professional imaging systems for three‐dimensional facial imaging: a pilot study. J Dent. 2023;137:104676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0063] 63. Amezua X, Iturrate M, Garikano X, Solaberrieta E. Analysis of the influence of the facial scanning method on the transfer accuracy of a maxillary digital scan to a 3D face scan for a virtual facebow technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;130:1024‐1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0064] 64. Friscia M, Seidita F, Committeri U, et al. Efficacy of hilotherapy face mask in improving the trend of edema after orthognathic surgery: a 3D analysis of the face using a facial scan app for iPhone. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;26:485‐490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0065] 65. Revilla‐León M, Campbell HE, Meyer MJ, Umorin M, Sones A, Zandinejad A. Esthetic dental perception comparisons between 2D‐ and 3D‐simulated dental discrepancies. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:763‐773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0066] 66. Beretta M, Canova FF, Zaffarano L, Gianolio A. Face scan for Ceph 3D: a green way for diagnosis in children. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2022;23:201‐203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0067] 67. Kamath AA, Kamath MJ, Ekici S, et al. Workflow to develop 3D designed personalized neonatal CPAP masks using iPhone structured light facial scanning. 3D Print Med. 2022;8:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0068] 68. Van Lint L, Christiaens L, Stroo V, et al. Accuracy comparison of 3D face scans obtained by portable Stereophotogrammetry and smartphone applications. J Med Biol Eng. 2023;43:550‐560. [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0069] 69. Campomanes AGD, Meer E, Clarke M, Brodie FL. Using a smartphone 3‐dimensional surface imaging technique to manufacture custom 3‐dimensional‐printed eyeglasses. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140:966‐973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0070] 70. Bartella AK, Laser J, Kamal M, et al. Accuracy of low‐cost alternative facial scanners: a prospective cohort study. Oral Maxillofac Surg‐Heidelberg. 2023;27:33‐41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0071] 71. Li J, Chen Z, Decker AM, et al. Trueness and precision of economical smartphone‐based virtual Facebow records. J Prosthodont: Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists. 2022;31:22‐29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0072] 72. Unkovskiy A, Spintzyk S, Beuer F, Huettig F, Röhler A, Kraemer‐Fernandez P. Accuracy of capturing nasal, orbital, and auricular defects with extra‐ and intraoral optical scanners and smartphone: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;117:103916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0073] 73. You P, Liu YCC, Silva RC. Fabrication of 3D models for microtia reconstruction using smartphone‐based technology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022;131:373‐378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0074] 74. Chong Y, Liu X, Shi M, Huang J, Yu N, Long X. Three‐dimensional facial scanner in the hands of patients: validation of a novel application on iPad/iPhone for three‐dimensional imaging. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:1115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0075] 75. Rudy HL, Wake N, Yee J, Garfein ES, Tepper OM. Three‐dimensional facial scanning at the fingertips of patients and surgeons: accuracy and precision testing of iPhone X three‐dimensional scanner. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146:1407‐1417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0076] 76. To JK , Vu AN, Ediriwickrema LS, Browne AW. Comparison of a custom photogrammetry for anatomical CarE (PHACE) system with other low‐ cost facial scanning devices. 2023.

[ocr12821-bib-0077] 77. Singh P, Hsung RTC, Ajmera DH, Leung YY, McGrath C, Gu M. Can smartphones be used for routine dental clinical application? A validation study for using smartphone‐generated 3D facial images. J Dent. 2023;139:104775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0078] 78. Popov T, Fierz FC, Bockisch CJ, Weber KP. Using smartphone exophthalmometry to measure eyeball protrusion. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023;141:974‐981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0079] 79. Xia Y, Wang K, Billing A, Billing M, Cooper RJ, Zhao H. Low‐cost, smartphone‐based instant three‐dimensional registration system for infant functional near‐infrared spectroscopy applications. Neurophotonics. 2023;10:46601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0080] 80. Krogager ME, Fugleholm K, Mathiesen TI, Spiriev T. Simplified easy‐accessible smartphone‐based photogrammetry for 3‐dimensional anatomy presentation exemplified with a photorealistic cadaver‐based model of the intracranial and extracranial course of the facial nerve. Ope Neurosurg. 2023;25:e71‐e77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0081] 81. İnal CB, Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca NS. Using a smartphone three dimensional scanning application (Polycam) to three dimensionally print an ear cast: a technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2023. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0082] 82. Maiese A, Manetti AC, Ciallella C, Fineschi V. The introduction of a new diagnostic tool in forensic pathology: LiDAR sensor for 3D autopsy documentation. Biosensors (Basel). 2022;12:132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ocr12821-bib-0083] 83. European Parliamentary Research Service . Understanding EU data protection policy. 2023. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698898/EPRS_BRI(2022)698898_EN.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2023.

[ocr12821-bib-0084] 84. Privacy and Information Security Law Blog . Apple and google announce effective dates of new mobile app privacy requirements. 2021. https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2021/11/08/apple‐and‐google‐announce‐effective‐dates‐of‐new‐mobile‐app‐privacy‐requirements/ Accessed December 27, 2023.

[ocr12821-bib-0085] 85. Official Journal of the European Union . REGULATION (EU) 2017/745 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. 2017. https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745. Accessed December 27, 2023.

[ocr12821-bib-0086] 86. European Medicines Agency . Medical Devices, in European Medicines Agency. 2023. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human‐regulatory‐overview/medical‐devices. Accessed December 27, 2023

PERMALINK

Smartphone applications for facial scanning: A technical and scoping review

Thanatchaporn Jindanil

Lianyi Xu

Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele

Maria Cadenas de Llano Perula

Reinhilde Jacobs

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Part 1: Technical review of smartphone scanning applications

2.1.1. Eligibility criteria

2.1.2. Information sources

2.1.3. SSA selection, data collection and synthesis of the results

2.2. Part 2: Scoping review of the literature

2.2.1. Protocol and registration

2.2.2. Eligibility criteria

2.2.3. Information sources

2.2.4. Study selection

2.2.5. Data items and data charting process

2.2.6. Synthesis of results and critical appraisal

3. RESULTS

3.1. Part 1: Technical review of smartphone scanning applications

TABLE 1.

FIGURE 1.

3.2. Part 2: Scoping review of the literature

FIGURE 2.

TABLE 2.

TABLE 3.

4. DISCUSSION

5. CONCLUSION

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

FUNDING INFORMATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

ETHICS STATEMENT

Supporting information

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases