ArticleBMC oral health2024
Smartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D anthropometry of the nasolabial region in children aged 3 to 9 months as reference database for clinical assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the validity and reliability of smartphone-generated three-dimensional (3D) facial images for routine evaluation of the oronasal region of patients with cleft by comparing their accuracy to that of direct anthropometry (DA) and 3dMD. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen soft-tissue facial landmarks were manually labelled on each of the 17 (9 males and 8 females; mean age 23.3 ± 5.4 years) cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients' faces. Two surface imaging systems, 3dMDface and Bellus3D FaceApp, were used to perform two imaging operations on each labelled face. Subsequently, 32 inter-landmark facial measurements were directly measured on the labelled faces and digitally measured on the 3D facial images. Statistical comparisons were made between smartphone-generated 3D facial images (SGI), DA, and 3dMD measurements.
resultsThe SGI measurements were slightly higher than those from DA and 3dMD, but the mean differences between inter-landmark measurements were not statistically significant across all three methods. In terms of clinical acceptability, 16% and 59% of measures showed differences of ≤ 3 mm or ≤ 5º, with good agreement between DA and SGI and 3dMD and SGI, respectively. A small systematic bias of ± 0.2 mm was observed generally among the three methods. Additionally, the mean absolute difference between the DA and SGI methods was the highest for linear measurements (1.31 ± 0.34 mm) and angular measurements (4.11 ± 0.76º).
conclusionsSGI displayed fair trueness compared to DA and 3dMD. It exhibited high accuracy in the orolabial area and specific central and flat areas within the oronasal region. Notwithstanding this, it has limited clinical applicability for assessing the entire oronasal region of patients with CLP. From a clinical application perspective, SGI should accurately encompass the entire oronasal region for optimal clinical use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SGI can be considered for macroscopic oronasal analysis or for patient education where accuracy within 3 mm and 5º may not be critical.
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.