ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Nowadays, a wide variety of software for 3D reconstruction from CT scans is available; they differ for costs, capabilities, a priori knowledge, and, it is not trivial to identify the most suitable one for specific purposes. The article is aimed to provide some more information, having set up various metrics for the evaluation of different software's performance. METHODS: Metrics include software usability, segmentation quality, geometric accuracy, mesh properties and Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Five different software have been considered (Mimics, D2P, Blue Sky Plan, Relu, and 3D Slicer) and tested on four cases; the mandibular bone was used as a benchmark. RESULTS: Relu software, being based on AI, was able to solve some very intricate geometry and proved to have a very good usability. On the other side, the time required for segmentation was significantly higher than other software (reaching over twice the time required by Mimics). Geometric distances between nodes position calculated by different software usually kept below 2.5 mm, reaching 3.1 mm in some very critical area; 75th percentile q75 is generally less than 0.5 mm, with a maximum of 1.11 mm. Dealing with consistency among software, the maximum DSC value was observed between Mimics and Slicer, D2P and Mimics, and D2P and Slicer, reaching 0.96. SIGNIFICANCE: This work has demonstrated how mandible segmentation performance among software was generally very good. Nonetheless, differences in geometric accuracy, usability, costs and times required can be significant so that information here provided can be useful to perform an informed choice.
