Journal: Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research

Article Title: Influence of Connecting Two Standalone Mobile Three-Dimensional Scanners on Accuracy Comparing with a Standard Device in Facial Scanning

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7404

Figure Lengend Snippet: Example of volunteer with test specimen mounted to the volunteer’s face. A = scanned with FaceScan3D ® ; B = scanned with Artec EVA ® bundle.

Article Snippet: Using the bundle of two Artec EVA ® scanners for scanning distances results in a mean inaccuracy of 2.997 mm, which is nearly 3 times as much as the imprecision of FaceScan3D ® .

Techniques:

Journal: Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research

Article Title: Influence of Connecting Two Standalone Mobile Three-Dimensional Scanners on Accuracy Comparing with a Standard Device in Facial Scanning

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7404

Figure Lengend Snippet: Boxplot showing mean error in best fit alignment of the test specimen (mm) in scans using Artec EVA ® and FaceScan3D ® , as well as corresponding P-values.

Article Snippet: Using the bundle of two Artec EVA ® scanners for scanning distances results in a mean inaccuracy of 2.997 mm, which is nearly 3 times as much as the imprecision of FaceScan3D ® .

Techniques:

Journal: Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research

Article Title: Influence of Connecting Two Standalone Mobile Three-Dimensional Scanners on Accuracy Comparing with a Standard Device in Facial Scanning

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7404

Figure Lengend Snippet: Boxplot showing mean deviation in length and width of test specimen (mm) in scans using Artec EVA ® and FaceScan3D ® , as well as corresponding P-values.

Article Snippet: Using the bundle of two Artec EVA ® scanners for scanning distances results in a mean inaccuracy of 2.997 mm, which is nearly 3 times as much as the imprecision of FaceScan3D ® .

Techniques:

Journal: Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research

Article Title: Influence of Connecting Two Standalone Mobile Three-Dimensional Scanners on Accuracy Comparing with a Standard Device in Facial Scanning

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7404

Figure Lengend Snippet: Boxplot showing mean deviation of angles between front plane and side planes of test specimen (angular degree, [°]) in scans using Artec EVA ® and FaceScan3D ® , as well as corresponding P-values.

Article Snippet: Using the bundle of two Artec EVA ® scanners for scanning distances results in a mean inaccuracy of 2.997 mm, which is nearly 3 times as much as the imprecision of FaceScan3D ® .

Techniques:

Journal: Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research

Article Title: Influence of Connecting Two Standalone Mobile Three-Dimensional Scanners on Accuracy Comparing with a Standard Device in Facial Scanning

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7404

Figure Lengend Snippet: Boxplot showing mean deviation of angles between neighbouring side planes of test specimen (angular degree, [°]) in scans using Artec EVA ® and FaceScan3D ® , as well as corresponding P-values.

Article Snippet: Using the bundle of two Artec EVA ® scanners for scanning distances results in a mean inaccuracy of 2.997 mm, which is nearly 3 times as much as the imprecision of FaceScan3D ® .

Techniques:

Journal: PeerJ

Article Title: Disentangling biological variability and taphonomy: shape analysis of the limb long bones of the sauropodomorph dinosaur Plateosaurus

doi: 10.7717/peerj.9359

Figure Lengend Snippet: Material sampled in this study.

Article Snippet: SMNS 12220 , “ Sellosaurus ” , Pfaffenhofen , L , Artec EVA Surface Scanner , 45.2.

Techniques:

Journal: PLoS ONE

Article Title: Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184498

Figure Lengend Snippet: A) Example of transtibial residual limb with the three anatomical markers; B) Romer scanning conditions; C) Artec Eva scanning conditions; D) Romer (pink) and Artec Eva (blue) 3D models prior to alignment; E) aligned models with the plane 0, defined as the plane passing through the distal border of the three reference points; F) CSAs along the residual limb.

Article Snippet: The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Artec Eva scanner (practical measurement) against a high precision laser 3D scanner (criterion measurement) for the determination of residual limb model shape and volume.

Techniques:

Journal: PLoS ONE

Article Title: Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184498

Figure Lengend Snippet: Top panel: Bland-Altman plots for model volumes calculated with the criterion (Romer scanner) and the practical (Artec Eva scanner) measurement system; Bottom panel: modified Bland-Altman plots displaying the error of volumes measured with the practical (Artec Eva) scanner expressed as a percentage of the Romer scanner volumes (average between trials). The open circles represent transtibial models, while the full circles represent transfemoral models. The dashed lines indicate the upper and lower 95% limits of agreements.

Article Snippet: The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Artec Eva scanner (practical measurement) against a high precision laser 3D scanner (criterion measurement) for the determination of residual limb model shape and volume.

Techniques: Modification

Journal: PLoS ONE

Article Title: Validity and reliability of a novel 3D scanner for assessment of the shape and volume of amputees’ residual limb models

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184498

Figure Lengend Snippet: Example comparison of the same model collected with the 2 different scanners from the same observer for a right-sided trans-femoral models (A) and a left-sided transtibial model (B). RMSE differences are indicated by the coloured scale on the left (red positive mean values indicate that the Artec Eva scanner measured a bigger volume). From left to right: anterior view, lateral view, medial view and posterior view of the residual limb model.

Article Snippet: The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Artec Eva scanner (practical measurement) against a high precision laser 3D scanner (criterion measurement) for the determination of residual limb model shape and volume.

Techniques:

Journal: Heliyon

Article Title: Assessment of the accuracy of 3D printed medical models through reverse engineering

doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31829

Figure Lengend Snippet: Manufacturer data for selected hand-held 3D scanning systems.

Article Snippet: Artec EVA-M , 0.041–0.213 , 0–0.472 , 0.174.

Techniques: Software

Journal: Heliyon

Article Title: Assessment of the accuracy of 3D printed medical models through reverse engineering

doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31829

Figure Lengend Snippet: Summary of the deviation range and RMS of the 3D scanners.

Article Snippet: Artec EVA-M , 0.041–0.213 , 0–0.472 , 0.174.

Techniques:

Journal: Heliyon

Article Title: Assessment of the accuracy of 3D printed medical models through reverse engineering

doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31829

Figure Lengend Snippet: Each 3D scanner's Hausdorff distance interquartile ranges.

Article Snippet: Artec EVA-M , 0.041–0.213 , 0–0.472 , 0.174.

Techniques: