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.

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.