|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
An evaluation of user satisfaction and image quality of a novel handheld purpose-built mobile camera system for 3-dimensional (3D) facial acquisition is lacking.The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to assess and compare the effectiveness between a handheld mobile camera system designed for facial acquisition and a fixed static camera arrangement by comparing the time effectiveness and the operator and participant preference for the 2 techniques of image capture.Completely edentulous participants (n=12: women=7, men=5; mean age: 74.6 years) were included in this pilot study. Images were captured with and without the prostheses in situ while maintaining “serious” and “full-smile” facial expressions. Images were captured using a mobile and a static system. The working times for the participant installation and image captures were recorded. Operator and participant perceptions of the entire experience were recorded by using visual analog scale questionnaires. Nonparametric tests were used for statistical analyses (α=.05).The installation time was significantly shorter for the mobile system (static=24 ±13 seconds; mobile=10 ±10 seconds), but the differences in the image capture times were not statistically significant (static: 29 ±5 seconds; mobile: 40 ±18 seconds). Operator preference was in favor of the mobile system with regard to working time (P=.002), difficulty in using (installation: P=.002; handling: P=.045), and camera weight (P=.002); however, they preferred the static arrangement for image quality (P=.003) and comfort (P=.013). The participants rated the entire photographic experience favorably, and 10 of 12 participants preferred the static camera over the mobile one.Despite the complexity of the installation, the static system was evaluated better for image quality; the mobile system was easier in installation and handling. The operators preferred the mobile system, and the participants preferred the static system.