ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Facial Scanning Accuracy with Stereophotogrammetry and Smartphone Technology in Children: A Systematic Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability of Extraoral Scanners in Capturing 3D Geometry for Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- 3D photogrammetry quantifies the size of basal cell carcinoma lesions with submillimeter accuracy: high correlation with lesion response to photodynamic therapy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Trial
- Smartphone-based photogrammetry and videogrammetry versus structured light scanning for the assessment of facial landmark distances and uncertainty.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Ethical and regulatory aspects of facial scanning in dentistry: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Review
- Facial Landmarks Determination with Different Digital Scanners: An In Vivo Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing genotype-phenotype analysis through 3D facial morphometry: insights from Cri-du-Chat syndrome.Journal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- Symmetry After Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Comparison of Immediate vs. Delayed-Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Smartphone-Based 3D Surface Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating 3D Hand Scanning Accuracy Across Trained and Untrained Students.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Evaluating smartphone-based 3D imaging techniques for clinical application in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A comparative study with the vectra M5.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Utilization of 3D evaluation for assessing selective caries removal practice in pre-clinical dental students: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- "Utility of Smartphone-based Three-dimensional Surface Imaging for Digital Facial Anthropometry".JPRAS open · 2024Article
- Craniofacial 3D Morphometric Analysis with Smartphone-Based Photogrammetry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Smartphone-Based Facial Scanning as a Viable Tool for Facially Driven Orthodontics?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Identification of Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome Through Swap Disentangled Variational Autoencoder.The Journal of craniofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to systematically review and compare the accuracy of smartphone scanners versus stereophotogrammetry technology for facial digitization in children. A systematic literature search strategy of articles published from 1 January 2010 to 30 August 2022 was adopted through a combination of Mesh terms and free text words pooled through boolean operators on the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and OpenGrey. Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Stationary stereophotogrammetry devices showed a mean accuracy that ranged from 0.087 to 0.860 mm, portable stereophotogrammetry scanners from 0.150 to 0.849 mm, and smartphones from 0.460 to 1.400 mm. Regarding the risk of bias assessment, fourteen papers showed an overall low risk, three articles had unclear risk and four articles had high risk. Although smartphones showed less performance on deep and irregular surfaces, all the analyzed devices were sufficiently accurate for clinical application. Internal depth-sensing cameras or external infrared structured-light depth-sensing cameras plugged into smartphones/tablets increased the accuracy. These devices are portable and inexpensive but require greater operator experience and patient compliance for the incremented time of acquisition. Stationary stereophotogrammetry is the gold standard for greater accuracy and shorter acquisition time, avoiding motion artifacts.
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.