ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Precision of a Hand-Held 3D Surface Scanner in Dry and Wet Skeletal Surfaces: An Ex Vivo Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of anterior cranial base surfaces acquired from computed tomography imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Measurement of Nasal Contour Landmarks in Septorhinoplasties with Special Regard to the Course of Postoperative Swelling Using a Three-Dimensional Camera.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of two 3D scanning software to identify facial features: a prospective instrument to predict difficult airway.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of facial skeletal surfaces segmented from CT and CBCT radiographs.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Intraoral Scanners for In Vivo 3D Imaging of the Gingiva and the Alveolar Process.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Three-dimensional surface scans of skeletal structures have various clinical and research applications in medicine, anthropology, and other relevant fields. The aim of this study was to test the precision of a widely used hand-held surface scanner and the associated software's 3D model generation-error in both dry and wet skeletal surfaces. Ten human dry skulls and ten mandibles (dry and wet conditions) were scanned twice with an industrial scanner (Artec Space Spider) by one operator. Following a best-fit superimposition of corresponding surface model pairs, the mean absolute distance (MAD) between them was calculated on ten anatomical regions on the skulls and six on the mandibles. The software's 3D model generation process was repeated for the same scan of four dry skulls and four mandibles (wet and dry conditions), and the results were compared in a similar manner. The median scanner precision was 31 μm for the skulls and 25 μm for the mandibles in dry conditions, whereas in wet conditions it was slightly lower at 40 μm for the mandibles. The 3D model generation-error was negligible (range: 5-10 μm). The Artec Space Spider scanner exhibits very high precision in the scanning of dry and wet skeletal surfaces.
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.