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

Ahmed Mangoud Badr; Wael M. Mubarak Refai; Mohamed Gaber El-Shal; Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2021.6006

Authors

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

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6006

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.1999.2.2.49 PMid:10534979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.1999.2.2.49

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. https://doi.org/10.2319/041012-299.1 PMid:22889202 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/041012-299.1

Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM. Anthropometric growth study of the head. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(4):303-8. https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<0303:agsoth>2.3.co;2 PMid:1643057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569(1992)029<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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.029 PMid:17920500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.029

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. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.38.3.e370xpnq57461375 PMid:25095325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.38.3.e370xpnq57461375

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.022 PMid:20691358 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.022

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. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.52.007874 PMid:24513736 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.007874

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. https://doi.org/10.1597/06-175 PMid:18452351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/06-175

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. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.16 PMid:12594423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.16

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198807000-00008 PMid:3421653 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198807000-00008

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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093442 PMid:24710215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093442

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200401000-00042 PMid:14704586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200401000-00042

Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: Part I. J Orthod. 2004;31(1):62-70. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225011346 PMid:15071154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225011346

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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041898 PMid:22879898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041898

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-010-9926-x PMid:20135249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-010-9926-x

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.007 PMid:24182583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.007

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. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-066.1 PMid:15352857 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/03-066.1

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.30959 PMid:16158436 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.30959

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.09.005 PMid:17980940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.09.005

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199504000-00004 PMid:7793780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199504000-00004

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003 PMid:24529695 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.003

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.12.009 PMid:19167191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.12.009

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.04.017 PMid:17561318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2007.04.017

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3181d841f7 PMid:20485043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d841f7

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. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255060 PMid:20571987 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255060

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181b454bd PMid:19935311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b454bd

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. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.08919 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.08919

Farkas LG, Bryson W, Klotz J. Is photogrammetry of the face reliable? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66(3):346-55. PMid:7422721 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198009000-00004

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.01.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.01.016

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02091-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-02091-5