Background: Burn assessment traditionally relies on visual inspection and 2D estimation, which introduces substantial variability in determining wound size and healing progression. Three-dimensional (3D) surface scanning offers a more objective alternative, yet the clinical utility of area-based metrics obtained from 3D surface data remains insufficiently defined. This pilot study aimed to evaluate structured-light 3D scanning for objective longitudinal quantification of the burn wound surface area and a description of area-based healing dynamics derived from repeated measurements. Methods: Eighteen patients with 43 acute thermal burns underwent serial structured-light scanning, followed by manual segmentation of wound regions and the calculation of absolute and percentage area reduction as well as TBSA-normalized metrics. Longitudinal monitoring was performed by comparing sequential 3D surface models acquired at defined clinical follow-ups, enabling the calculation of absolute area change (ΔA), percentage reduction, daily healing rate, and ΔTBSA%. Results: Baseline wound areas ranged from 7.27 to 2137.98 cm². Percentage area reduction ranged from 5.25% to 92.30%. The overall reduction in burn burden (ΔTBSA) ranged from 0.07% to 12.94%. Large wounds tended to show rapid absolute area reduction (>100–300 cm²/day) during early follow-up, while small superficial burns frequently achieved >80% reduction within 10–15 days. Conclusions: These findings suggest that 3D surface scanning may support the objective longitudinal assessment of burn wound healing. This pilot provides a basis for future studies evaluating additional topographic parameters and broader clinical applications.

Accurate documentation of burn wounds is essential for evaluating treatment outcomes and monitoring healing progression. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) photography remains the clinical standard but lacks depth and volumetric accuracy. Three-dimensional (3D) scanning offers enhanced visualization of wound morphology and tissue vitality, potentially improving objectivity in burn assessment. This study compares two handheld 3D scanning systems—Artec Eva and Revopoint Miraco—in documenting acute and healing burn wounds, using standard clinical photography as the reference. Fifteen patients with second-degree and third-degree burns were prospectively examined at the Burn Unit of AGEL Hospital Košice-Šaca, with five representative cases selected for detailed analysis. For each patient, clinical photographs and paired 3D scans were obtained under standardized conditions and evaluated for color fidelity, wound margin clarity, representation of epithelialisation islands, necrotic tissue, and correlation with clinical findings. Across all cases, Artec Eva demonstrated superior color accuracy, clearer wound delineation, and more realistic visualization of tissue vitality and re-epithelialisation. Revopoint Miraco reliably captured wound shape but produced darker tones and exaggerated surface relief, occasionally distorting depth perception. Overall, both systems successfully identified key healing features; however, Artec Eva provided more clinically accurate and visually consistent results. Three-dimensional scanning represents a valuable adjunct to conventional burn documentation.

Three-dimensional facial scanning is an important tool in reconstructive surgery and burn medicine for objective documentation, treatment planning, and fabrication of patient-specific devices. While professional structured-light scanners provide high geometric accuracy, their cost limits routine implementation. Several low-cost consumer-grade alternatives are available; however, their accuracy for clinically relevant facial applications remains insufficiently validated. Thirty volunteers were initially recruited for facial scanning. Two participants withdrew from further scanning for personal reasons, resulting in a main study cohort of 28 participants. Complete datasets from all 28 participants were available for Artec Eva, Revopoint MIRACO, and Creality CR-Scan 01, whereas 22 Kiri Engine datasets met the predefined quality criteria for smartphone photogrammetry analysis. Facial scans acquired using Revopoint MIRACO, Creality CR-Scan 01, and Kiri Engine were compared with a professional structured-light scanner (Artec Eva) used as the reference system. Six clinically relevant inter-landmark distances were analysed together with global surface deviation relative to Artec Eva reference using Cloud-to-Mesh analysis. Agreement was evaluated using mean signed differences, mean absolute error (MAE), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, and post-hoc statistical testing. Both MIRACO and CR-Scan demonstrated favourable geometric agreement with the Artec Eva reference. Global surface RMSE relative to Artec Eva reference was 0.72 ± 0.24 mm for MIRACO and 0.57 ± 0.17 mm for CR-Scan, compared with 1.41 ± 0.58 mm for Kiri Engine. More than 90% of facial surface points were within 1 mm of the reference model for MIRACO (91 ± 8%) and CR-Scan (93 ± 7%), whereas Kiri Engine achieved 68 ± 16%. Pooled ICC values ranged from 0.998 to 0.999 across the evaluated systems. Pairwise comparisons showed no significant difference between MIRACO and CR-Scan (p = 0.42), while both significantly outperformed Kiri Engine (p < 0.001). Consumer-grade structured-light scanners demonstrated submillimeter global surface deviations, supporting further investigation for facial surface documentation and monitoring applications. Smartphone photogrammetry showed substantially larger deviations and may be less suitable for applications requiring precise quantitative measurements. Low-cost structured-light systems demonstrated promising geometric performance in healthy volunteers; however, further validation in relevant clinical populations is required before their applicability to reconstructive surgery and burn care workflows can be established.

Background: Hypertrophic scarring remains a common and clinically challenging consequence of burn injury. Although compression therapy is widely used, its effectiveness is limited by variability in pressure delivery, lack of personalization and inconsistent treatment protocols. Methods: This prospective single-centre feasibility study included adult patients with post-burn scars following deep partial-thickness or full-thickness injuries. The study was designed as a two-phase workflow. In Phase I, scars were documented using standardized photography and 3D surface scanning and were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Scars were stratified based on a predefined threshold (VSS >6) for progression to intervention. In Phase II, patient-specific compression matrices will be designed from 3D surface data and fabricated using biocompatible material. Computational modeling using finite element analysis (FEA) will be applied to simulate pressure distribution. Follow-up is planned at 1, 3, and 6 months, with the VSS as the primary outcome measure. Results: A total of 27 scars were included. The median VSS score was 7 (IQR 5–8). Based on stratification, 14 scars (51.9%) were eligible for personalized compression therapy. Three-dimensional imaging was feasible in all cases and allowed for improved qualitative visualization of scar morphology compared to standard photography. Preliminary findings support the applicability of the proposed workflow, while longitudinal outcome analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: This feasibility study presents and evaluates a clinical workflow combining 3D imaging, objective scar stratification, and personalized compression therapy. This approach provides a structured framework for personalized compression therapy, while its clinical effectiveness remains to be established. Further studies are required to evaluate long-term outcomes.