JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Biomedical Applications of Stereoscopy for Three-Dimensional Surface Reconstruction in Scanning Electron Microscopes
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Applied Microscopy
  • Volume 46, Issue 2,  2016, pp.71-75
  • Publisher : Korean Society of Electron Microscopy
  • DOI : 10.9729/AM.2016.46.2.71
 Title & Authors
Biomedical Applications of Stereoscopy for Three-Dimensional Surface Reconstruction in Scanning Electron Microscopes
Kim, Ki Woo;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) offers two-dimensional (2D) micrographs of three-dimensional (3D) objects due to its inherent operating mechanisms. To overcome this limitation, other devices have been used for quantitative morphological analysis. Many efforts have been made on the applications of software-based approaches to 3D reconstruction and measurements by SEM. Based on the acquisition of two stereo images, a multi-view technique consists of two parts: (i) geometric calibration and (ii) image matching. Quantitative morphological parameters such as height and depth could be nondestructively measured by SEM combined with special software programs. It is also possible to obtain conventional surface parameters such as roughness and volume of biomedical specimens through 3D SEM surface reconstruction. There is growing evidence that conventional 2D SEM without special electron detectors can be transformed to 3D SEM for quantitative measurements in biomedical research.
 Keywords
Scanning electron microscope;Stereo pairs;Three-dimension;Tilting;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Three-dimensional reconstruction of highly complex microscopic samples using scanning electron microscopy and optical flow estimation, PLOS ONE, 2017, 12, 4, e0175078  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Andruleit H, Geisen M, Stager S (2006) Stereo-microscopy of coccolithophores: modern applications for imaging and morphological analysis. J. Nannoplankton. Res. 28, 1-16. crossref(new window)

2.
Bharadwaj S, Nekrasov V, Vishnubhotla R, Foster C, and Glover S C (2012) Commensal E. coli strains uniquely alter the ECM topography independent of colonic epithelial cells. J. Biomater. Nanobiotechnol. 3, 70-78. crossref(new window)

3.
Bozzola J J and Russell L D (1999) Electron Microscopy: Principles and Techniques for Biologists, 2nd ed., (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston).

4.
Kim K W (2006) Atomic force microscopy for direct imaging and nanoscale morphometry of the rice false smut fungus Ustilaginoidea virens. J. Phytopathol. 154, 751-754. crossref(new window)

5.
Kim K W (2015) Three-dimensional surface reconstruction and in situ site-specific cutting of the teliospores of Puccinia miscanthi causing leaf rust of the biomass plant Miscanthus sinensis. Micron 73, 15-20. crossref(new window)

6.
Kim K W, Lee I J, Kim C S, Lee D K, and Park E W (2011) Micromorphology of epicuticular waxes and epistomatal chambers of pine species by electron microscopy and white light scanning interferometry. Microsc. Microanal. 17, 118-124.

7.
Limandri S, Josa V G, Valentinuzzi M C, Chena M E, and Castellano G (2016) 3D scanning electron microscopy applied to surface characterization of fluorosed dental enamel. Micron 84, 54-60. crossref(new window)

8.
Piazzesi G (1973) Photogrammetry with the scanning electron microscope. J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 6, 392-396. crossref(new window)

9.
Scherer S (2002) 3D surface analysis in scanning electron microscopy. Imag. Microsc. 3, 45-46.

10.
Schroettner H, Schmied M, and Scherer S (2006) Comparison of 3D surface reconstruction data from certified depth standards obtained by SEM and an Infinite Focus Measurement Machine (IFM). Microchim. Acta 155, 279-284. crossref(new window)

11.
Szczepanowska H, Mathia T G, and Belin P (2014) Morphology of fungal stains on paper characterized with multi-scale and multi-sensory surface metrology. Scanning 36, 76-85. crossref(new window)

12.
Tafti A P, Kirkpatrick A B, Alavi Z, Owen H A, and Yu Z (2015) Recent advances in 3D SEM surface reconstruction. Micron 78, 54-66. crossref(new window)