Tjitske Bannink, Evie H M Graus, Maarten J A van Alphen, Michiel W M van den Brekel, M Baris Karakullukçu
SSM‑based nasal reconstructions were largely comparable to original noses, supporting the feasibility of this approach for digital anaplastology, although systematic under‑projection indicates the need for further model refinement.
PURPOSE: Conventional nasal prosthesis design strongly depends on the artistic skills and experience of the anaplastologist. Digital approaches may reduce this dependency by automating patient-specific nasal shape generation. Statistical shape modeling (SSM) enables computation of a nose that aligns with an individual's facial morphology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty participants without facial deformities underwent three-dimensional (3D) facial scanning using an Artec Space Spider optical scanner. For each participant, the original nose (OG-nose) was digitally removed to create a standardized artificial nasal defect. An SSM-based algorithm reconstructed a nasal shape (SSM-nose), which was positioned on the facial model. A blinded assessment panel of participants, healthcare professionals, and patients evaluated randomized facial models featuring either the OG-nose or SSM-nose. Standardized questionnaires assessed natural appearance, aesthetics, notability, and facial harmony, and specific nasal characteristics (size, width, shape, depth, and pose). A paired-comparison questionnaire asked assessors to indicate their preferred nose. Objective comparison used predefined anthropometric measurements.
RESULTS: Pooled analysis revealed significant differences for natural appearance and fit to the face, with SSM-noses rated lower than OG-noses. Case-wise comparisons, however, revealed no significant differences between OG-nose and SSM-nose ratings. In the paired preference assessment, healthcare professionals selected the OG-nose in 47% and the SSM-nose in 41% of cases; participants preferred the OG-nose in 71% and the SSM-nose in 17%. Several anthropometric parameters differed significantly, though absolute differences were small. Differences mainly concerned nasal projection, with reduced nasal bridge height (-1.9 mm), pronasale depth (-4.1 mm), and columella length (-3.9 mm), accompanied by corresponding angular changes, indicating slightly reduced protrusion in SSM-noses.
CONCLUSIONS: SSM‑based nasal reconstructions were largely comparable to original noses, supporting the feasibility of this approach for digital anaplastology, although systematic under‑projection indicates the need for further model refinement.