Tangthaweesuk N.Raocharernporn S.Mahidol University2025-06-012025-06-012025-05-01PLoS ONE Vol.20 No.5 May (2025)https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/110458This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) and reproducibility of three 3D facial scanning systems: a laser scanner (Planmeca Proface), a dual-structured light scanner (EinScan H2), and a smartphone application (EM3D Scanner). Thirty subjects with skeletal deformities scheduled for orthognathic surgery were scanned using these systems, and the resulting 90 3D facial scans were compared with facial surfaces segmented from CBCT scans. Surface discrepancies were measured using root mean square (RMS) values across five facial aesthetic areas (cheeks, nasal, perioral, and mental units) through Geomagic Control X software. The EM3D Scanner showed significantly better trueness and precision compared to the EinScan H2, particularly for the overall face (p<0.01). Planmeca Proface showed no significant difference from the other scanners in terms of error. The nasal and perioral regions, scanned with Planmeca Proface, achieved the highest accuracy compared to other areas, while the left cheek demonstrated the lowest accuracy. Up to 80% of the scanned areas were classified as reproducible, falling within acceptable tolerance limits. Overall, trueness values ranged from 0.70 to 0.85mm, and precision ranged from 0.68 to 0.81mm, with deviations of less than 1.0mm deemed highly acceptable for clinical applications. Surface regions closer to the midline were found to have higher accuracy than those on the sides of the face. These findings highlight the potential of EM3D Scanner and Planmeca Proface for accurate and reliable facial scanning, particularly in clinical settings where minimal deviation is crucial.MultidisciplinaryArticleSCOPUS10.1371/journal.pone.03223582-s2.0-10500576996219326203