Fig 1.
Flow chart for the study identification.
Table 1.
Summary of the reviewed articles.
Fig 2.
Distribution of the publication journals within SCImago disciplinary areas.
Fig 3.
Classification of reviewed studies according to their aim. data up to December 31st, 2018.
Table 2.
Shooting protocol summary.
Table 3.
Software used for mesh processing, post-processing, and analysis.
Table 4.
Summary of literature on UCR-DP accuracy and reliability.
Table 5.
Online repositories for skeletal 3D models sharing.
Fig 4.
Comparison between UCR-DP (left) and CT scanning (right) in describing the skull MSAE-6428 (musae—museo sardo di Antropologia ed etnografia, Università degli studi di Cagliari, Italy).
a1-a2. Visual restitution of the whole specimen. b1-b2. Mesh density for the whole specimen. c1-c2. Mesh density detailing the geometry. UCR-DP data collection with two Canon EOS 1200D DSLRs at 100 ISO, using prime 50 mm f/1.8 lenses, 50 cm shooting distance, 5500 K light sources; 3D reconstruction via ReCap Photo cloud-based environment. CT data collection with a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash CT-scanner and 0.75 mm slice thickness; segmentation via 3D Slicer 4.8.1 (https://www.slicer.org).