Dermatology is a visual specialty, yet much of it still relies on flat, two-dimensional images to document a three-dimensional organ: the human body. With advances in imaging, AI, and spatial computing, it’s reasonable to ask—why hasn’t 3D imaging become routine in dermatology?

The answer isn’t that dermatology is resistant to innovation. It’s that 2D imaging is deeply practical, surprisingly powerful, and embedded into nearly every layer of clinical care.

The Ease of 2D Images

2D imaging speaks a universal language. A JPEG can be viewed in the electronic medical record, shared in a referral, uploaded to a patient portal, embedded in research datasets, or attached to an insurance claim—no special software required. The moment imaging moves into 3D, it often leaves this frictionless ecosystem and enters a world of proprietary viewers, vendor platforms, and added technical complexity.

There is also an adoption hurdle that 2D never faced: 3D must clearly improve outcomes without introducing new workflow problems. Teledermatology has already shown how fragile imaging quality can be when it depends on patient phones, variable lighting, inconsistent framing, and uncontrolled environments. If clinics struggle to standardize reliable 2D images at scale, extending that reliability to 3D (especially outside specialized capture setups) becomes a serious operational challenge.

Approximating 3D With Multiple 2D Views

From a cost and workflow perspective, 2D remains easy to justify. Taking a photo requires minimal equipment, little training, and modest storage. By contrast, 3D systems often involve higher upfront costs, staff training, maintenance, and larger data files.

In practice, many clinicians approximate three-dimensional understanding by taking more two-dimensional images: an overview shot, mid-range context, close-ups, dermoscopy, and serial follow-ups. It’s not elegant, but it’s flexible, and it works well enough for many clinical decisions.

What Would Tip the Balance Toward 3D?

For 3D imaging to become routine, it has to remove more friction than add to it. That means:

• Cheaper capture with faster workflows, where 3D feels as effortless as taking a single photo
• Standards for storage and interpretation, so 3D data isn’t locked inside vendor-specific silos
• Clear real-world cost-effectiveness, demonstrated beyond short-term pilot studies
  
  

Why OptimaScan Was Built

That gap is exactly why OptimaScan was developed: to make fast, standardized, total-body imaging in 3D practical for everyday dermatology. OptimaScan focuses on eliminating the friction that has historically limited 3D adoption by prioritizing speed, repeatability, and consistency across operators and clinics.

In dermatology, longitudinal comparison is everything. The key question is rarely “What does this lesion look like today?” but rather “What has changed since the last visit?” By standardizing pose, distance, coverage, and acquisition consistency, OptimaScan enables truly comparable sessions over time—supporting meaningful follow-up, streamlined review, and scalable documentation.

Conclusion

Dermatology remains 2D not because 3D is impossible, but because 2D is cheap, universal, and deeply integrated into clinical life. The future is unlikely to be purely 3D. Instead, 2D will continue to serve speed and communication, while 3D earns its place where it delivers clear value: high-risk surveillance, precise body mapping, and longitudinal change detection.

-The MetaOptima Team

Thanks for reading! Curious about how DermEngine can improve your practice?