Accuracy and Reliability of Kinect Motion Sensing Input Device’s 3D Models: A Comparison to Direct Anthropometry and 2D Photogrammetry


  • Ahmed Mangoud Badr Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Aswan University, Tingar, Egypt
  • Wael M. Mubarak Refai Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Dean of Faculty of Dentistry, Aswan University, Tingar, Egypt
  • Mohamed Gaber El-Shal Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt
  • Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt



Direct anthropometry, Three-dimensional Models, Photogrammetry, Motion sensing input device, Kinect


AIM: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of Kinect motion sensing input device’s three-dimensional (3D) models by comparing it with direct anthropometry and digital 2D photogrammetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six profiles and four frontal parameters were directly measured on the faces of 80 participants. The same measurements were repeated using two-dimensional (2D) photogrammetry and (3D) images obtained from Kinect device. Another observer made the same measurements for 30% of the images obtained with 3D technique, and interobserver reproducibility was evaluated for 3D images. Intraobserver reproducibility was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using the paired samples t-test, interclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

RESULTS: The highest mean difference was 0.0084 mm between direct measurement and photogrammetry, 0.027 mm between direct measurement and 3D Kinect’s models, and 0.018 mm between photogrammetry and 3D Kinect’s. The lowest agreement value was 0.016 in the all parameter between the photogrammetry and 3D Kinect’s methods. Agreement between the two observers varied from 0.999 Sn-Me to 1 with the rest of linear measurements.

CONCLUSION: Measurements done using 3D Images obtained from Kinect device indicate that it may be an accurate and reliable imaging method for use in orthodontics. It also provides an easy low-cost 3D imaging technique that has become increasingly popular in clinical settings, offering advantages for surgical planning and outcome evaluation.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block


Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res. 1999;2(2):49-52. PMid:10534979 DOI:

Primozic J, Perinetti G, Richmond S, Ovsenik M. Threedimensional evaluation of facial asymmetry in association with unilateral functional crossbite in the primary, early, and late mixed dentition phases. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(2):253-8. PMid:22889202 DOI:

Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM. Anthropometric growth study of the head. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(4):303-8.<0303:agsoth>;2 PMid:1643057 DOI:<0303:AGSOTH>2.3.CO;2

Dimaggio FR, Ciusa V, Sforza C, Ferrario VF. Photographic soft-tissue profile analysis in children at 6 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(4):475-80. PMid:17920500 DOI:

Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Tortop T. Soft tissue alterations following protraction approaches with and without rapid maxillary expansion. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014;38(3):277-83. PMid:25095325 DOI:

Baik H-S, Kim SY. Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3dimensional laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):167- 78. PMid:20691358 DOI:

Zhao H, Du H, Li J, Qin Y. Shadow moire technology based fast method for the measurement of surface topography. Appl Opt. 2013;52(33):7874-81. PMid:24513736 DOI:

Ayoub AF, Wray D, Moos KF, Siebert P, Jin J, Niblett TB, et al. Three-dimensional modeling for modern diagnosis and planning in maxillofacial surgery. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1996;11(3):225-33. PMid:9456625

Wong JY, Oh AK, Ohta E, Hunt AT, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB, et al. Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(3):232-9. PMid:18452351 DOI:

Edler R, Wertheim D, Greenhill D. Comparison of radiographic and photographic measurement of mandibular asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(2):167-74. PMid:12594423 DOI:

Cutting CB, McCarthy JG, Karron DB. Three-dimensional input of body surface data using a laser light scanner. Ann Plast Surg. 1988;21(1):38-45. PMid:3421653 DOI:

Kuijpers MA, Chiu YT, Nada RM, Carels CE, Fudalej PS. Three-dimensional imaging methods for quantitative analysis of facial soft tissues and skeletal morphology in patients with orofacial clefts: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93442. PMid:24710215 DOI:

Littlefield TR, Kelly KM, Cherney JC, Beals SP, Pomatto JK. Development of a new three-dimensional cranial imaging system. J Craniofac Surg. 2004;15(1):175-81. PMid:14704586 DOI:

Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: Part I. J Orthod. 2004;31(1):62-70. PMid:15071154 DOI:

Brons S, van Beusichem ME, Bronkhorst EM, Draaisma J, Bergé SJ, Maal TJ, et al. Methods to quantify soft-tissue based facial growth and treatment outcomes in children: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41898. PMid:22879898 DOI:

Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Strnad F, Kochel M, StellzigEisenhauer A. 3D soft tissue analysis part 1: Sagittal parameters. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71(1):40-52. PMid:20135249 DOI:

Metzger TE, Kula KS, Eckert GJ, Ghoneima AA. Orthodontic soft-tissue parameters: A comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and the 3dMD imaging system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(5):672-81. PMid:24182583 DOI:

Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: Evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(5):507-18. PMid:15352857 DOI:

Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT. Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;138A(3):247-53. PMid:16158436 DOI:

Winder RJ, Darvann TA, McKnight W, Magee JD, Ramsay- Baggs P. Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46(1):33-7. PMid:17980940 DOI:

Kohn LA, Cheverud JM, Bhatia G, Commean P, Smith K, Vannier MW. Anthropometric optical surface imaging system repeatability, precision, and validation. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34(4):362-71. PMid:7793780 DOI:

Tzou CH, Artner NM, Pona I, Hold A, Placheta E, Kropatsch WG, et al. Comparison of threedimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(4):489-97. PMid:24529695 DOI:

Plooij JM, Swennen GRJ, Rangel FA, Maal TJ, Schutyser FA, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Evaluation of reproducibility and reliability of 3D soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38(3):267-73. PMid:19167191 DOI:

Khambay B, Nairn N, Bell A, Miller J, Bowman A, Ayoub AF. Validation and reproducibility of a high-resolution threedimensional facial imaging system. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;46(1):27-32. PMid:17561318 DOI:

Lubbers HT, Medinger L, Kruse A, Gratz KW, Matthews F. Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(3):763- 7. PMid:20485043 DOI:

Schaaf H, Pons-Kuehnemann J, Malik CY, Streckbein P, Preuss M, Howaldt HP, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional photogrammetric images in nonsynostotic cranial deformities. Neuropediatrics. 2010;41(1):24-9. PMid:20571987 DOI:

Heike CL, Cunningham ML, Hing AV, Stuhaug E, Starr JR. Picture perfect? Reliability of craniofacial anthropometry using three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(4):1261-72. PMid:19935311 DOI:

Junqueira-Júnior AA, Magri LV, Cazal MS, Mori AA, da Silva AM, da Silva MA. Accuracy evaluation of tridimensional images performed by portable stereophotogrammetric system. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2019;48:e20190089. DOI:

Farkas LG, Bryson W, Klotz J. Is photogrammetry of the face reliable? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66(3):346-55. PMid:7422721 DOI:

Wellens HL, Hoskens H, Claes P, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Ortega- Castrill A. Three-dimensional facial capture using a custom-built photogrammetry setup: Design, performance, and cost. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2020;158(2):286-99. DOI:

Liu J, Rokohl A, Guo Y, Li S, Hou X, Fan W, et al. Reliability of stereophotogrammetry for area measurement in the periocular region Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021;2021:1-10. DOI:




How to Cite

Badr AM, Refai WMM, El-Shal MG, Abdelhameed AN. Accuracy and Reliability of Kinect Motion Sensing Input Device’s 3D Models: A Comparison to Direct Anthropometry and 2D Photogrammetry. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2021 May 14 [cited 2024 Jun. 17];9(D):54-60. Available from: