ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Craniofacial Anthropometric Measurement Accuracy of Manual Technique vs. Cone-Beam CT Scanning.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of linear measurements obtained using the classical (manual) method versus cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in craniofacial anthropometry, specifically targeting the infraorbital foramen (IOF).
methodsThis study involved two sample groups: one of 40 dry skulls measured manually using digital calipers, and the other of 40 CBCT 3D images digitally measured. Measurements included IOF height, distances between the IOF and nasion (N), IOF and frontomalar orbital (FMO), and between the two IOFs. Statistical analysis was performed using an ANOVA, t-test, and Fisher's test with a significance level of 0.05.
resultsThe manual method recorded a mean IOF height of 2.1 mm, while CBCT showed a mean of 3.52 mm. Significant differences were recorded between the two methods when measuring IOF height, with a
conclusionsIn conclusion, although no significant differences were found in the overall accuracy of the two methods, CBCT proved to be a more reliable tool for detailed craniofacial measurements due to its higher accuracy and reproducibility. CBCT demonstrated superior consistency in measurements, offering enhanced precision in assessing craniofacial structures. These findings support the growing preference for CBCT in maxillofacial surgery, where precision is critical for successful outcomes. Nonetheless, manual techniques remain valuable in settings where advanced imaging is not accessible.
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.