ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Validity and reproducibility of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for the maxillofacial anthropometric measurement on cleft patients.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of Smartphone-Based Three-Dimensional Facial Scanning System: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Validation of Vectra 3D Imaging Systems: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of clockwise and counterclockwise Le Fort I movements combined with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy on nasal morphology.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Protocol for the Use of Stereophotogrammetry Three-dimensional System in Children during the First Years of Life.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Smartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Effect of facial and nasolabial asymmetry on perceived facial esthetics in children with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Automated anatomical landmark detection on 3D facial images using U-NET-based deep learning algorithm.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Cranial Orthosis for Plagiocephaly Based on 2D and 3D Evaluation.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
- "Utility of Smartphone-based Three-dimensional Surface Imaging for Digital Facial Anthropometry".JPRAS open · 2024Article
- In-House 3D Printed Positioning and Cutting Guide System for Mandibular Reconstruction. Protocol and case report.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Perioral Evaluation Method Using Three-Dimensional Stereophotogrammetry.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- Acquisition of Precision and Reliability of Modalities for Facial Reconstruction and Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Microtia Ear Reconstruction with Patient-Specific 3D Models-A Segmentation Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Reply to letter to the editor: "Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Mini-microform cleft lip with complete cleft alveolus and palate: A case report.Congenital anomalies · 2021Article
- Three-dimensional facial scanner in the hands of patients: validation of a novel application on iPad/iPhone for three-dimensional imaging.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo validate the accuracy and reproducibility of linear measurements of three-dimensional (3D) images and to compare the measurements with the direct anthropometry method on cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsNineteen linear facial measurements were derived from 16 standardized surface landmarks obtained from 37 cleft patients (20 males, 17 females; mean age 23.84 years, standard deviation ± 6.02). They were taken manually with calipers and were compared with the digitally calculated distance on the 3D images captured using the VECTRA-M5 360° Imaging System with pre-marked landmarks. Another pair of 19 linear measurements were computed on the 3D images 2 weeks apart for intra- and inter-observer agreements. Statistical analyses used were paired t test, the Bland-Altman analysis, and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) index.
resultsMost of the linear measurements showed no statistically significant differences between the proposed method and direct anthropometry linear measurements. Nevertheless, bias of the 3D imaging system is present in the linear measurements of the nose width and the upper vermillion height. The measurements' mean biases were within 2 mm, but the 95% limit of agreement was more than 2 mm. Intra- and inter-observer measurements generally showed good reproducibility. Four inter-observer measurements, the upper and lower face heights, nose width, and pronasale to left alar base were clinically significant.
conclusionsMeasurements obtained from this 3D imaging system are valid and reproducible for evaluating CLP patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The system is suitable to be used in a clinical setting for cleft patients. However, training of the operator is strictly advisable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31754872What 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.