ArticleScientific reports2023
3D assessment of the nasolabial region in cleft models comparing an intraoral and a facial scanner to a validated baseline.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unilateral and bilateral ex vivo cleft lip models: universal tools for surgical training at different levels of experience.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- Smartphone Scanning and Machine Learning for Automated Presurgical 3D-printed Plate Fabrication From Cleft Impressions.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Precision in Facial Measurements: Comparative Analysis Between a Digital 3D Scanner and an Analog Instrument.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- 3D anthropometry of the nasolabial region in children aged 3 to 9 months as reference database for clinical assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Growth pattern prediction of maxillary segments in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a prospective in vivo study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Smartphone-based scans of palate models of newborns with cleft lip and palate: Outlooks for three-dimensional image capturing and machine learning plate tool.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- 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
- Three-dimensional digital imaging analysis of the palatal bone thickness for orthodontic mini-implant insertion - determination of the safe zone and angulation.BMC oral health · 2024Observational
- Digital analysis of the human maxilla to enable semistandardized template tool reconstructions with free fibula transplants.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Application of Digital Molding in Maxillofacial Prosthetics: A Narrative Review : Application of Digital Molding in Maxillofacial Prosthetics.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- An ex vivo model for education and training of unilateral cleft lip surgery.BMC medical education · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to validate the metric accuracy of a 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanner (FS) and an intraoral scanner (IOS) in capturing the nasolabial region in ex vivo unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) models. The nasolabial region of 10 UCLP models was scanned using a 3D FS as well as an IOS and a previously validated stationary 3D scanner as a reference. Intraoral scan was performed directly on the UCLP models. In order to apply the FS on the models, they were embedded in a 3D printed sample face. Both test groups were aligned to the reference by applying a section-based best-fit algorithm. Subsequent analysis of the metric deviation from the reference was performed with a 3D analysis tool. Mean distance and integrated distance served as main parameters for surface and volume comparison. Point comparison served as an additional parameter. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test for unconnected samples. Considering mean distance and integrated distance as main parameters for 3D evaluation of the scanner's accuracy, FS and IOS differ significantly in their metric precision in scanning the cleft model compared to the reference. The IOS proved to be significantly more accurate than the FS compared to the previously described stationary 3D scanner as reference and validated baseline. Further validation of the tested IOS and FS for 3D assessment of the nasolabial region is presented by adding the previously validated ATOS III Triple Scan blue light scanner as a reference. The IOS shows, compared to a validated baseline scan, significantly higher metric precision in experimental cleft model scanning. The collected data provides a basis for clinical application of the IOS for 3D assessment of the nasolabial region.
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.