ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Identifying Three-Dimensional Facial Fluctuating Asymmetry in Normal Pediatric Individuals: A Panel Assessment Outcome Study of Clinicians and Observers.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Appearance in Peer Interactions for Early Adolescent Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Post-Repair.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Different 3D Surface Registration-Based Methods to Assess Facial Asymmetry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Subjective evaluation of facial asymmetry with three-dimensional simulated images among the orthodontists and laypersons: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Perceptions of mandibular asymmetry among orthodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and laypersons.Dental research journal · 2023Article
- Short-term and long-term psychological impact and quality of life of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.Biomedical journal · 2022Article
- Sleep, Distressed Appearance, and Quality of Life Relate to Satisfaction with Orthognathic Surgery.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The Perception of the Severity of Facial Asymmetry among Laypersons, General Practitioners, Orthodontists, and Maxillofacial Surgeons.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2021Article
- Transverse Asymmetries of the Maxilla Even in Healthy and Apparently Symmetrical Subjects.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Outcome of facial contour asymmetry after conventional two-dimensional versus computer-assisted three-dimensional planning in cleft orthognathic surgery.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Facial Appearance and Psychosocial Features in Orthognathic Surgery: A FACE-Q- and 3D Facial Image-Based Comparative Study of Patient-, Clinician-, and Lay-Observer-Reported Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study measured three-dimensional facial fluctuating asymmetry in 600 normal and healthy Taiwanese individuals (6 to 12 years old) and assessed the perceptions of increasing levels of facial fluctuating asymmetric severity by using a panel composed of 20 clinicians (surgical professionals), as well as 20 adult and 40 pre-adolescent observers. On average, this normal cohort presented a facial fluctuating asymmetry of 0.96 ± 0.52 mm, with 0.52 ± 0.05, 0.67 ± 0.09, 1.01 ± 0.10, and 1.71 ± 0.36 mm for levels I, II, III, and IV of severity, respectively. For all categories of raters, significant differences in the average symmetry-asymmetry scale values were observed, with level I < level II < level III = level IV (all
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.