ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Two experimental methods to integrate intra-oral scans into 3D stereophotogrammetric facial images.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of the registration of a digital dental cast or intraoral scan into a stereophotogrammetric image of the face: a systematic review.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Facial soft-tissue analysis in undergraduate dental education: comparison of 2D photographs and images derived from 3D facial scans.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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
objectivesFor this research two different ways for integrating intra-oral scans into three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetric images are analyzed and compared to the gold standard method. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed. For each patient a complete dataset was collected, which was used to generate 3D fusion models by three different methods: method A using cheek retractors, method B using a tracer and method C using full-skull CBCT. The experimental methods A and B were compared to the gold standard method C.
resultsA group of eighteen patients were included in this study. The translation (X, Y,Z), the euclidean distance and the rotation (roll, pitch, yaw) were calculated for both experimental methods A and B in comparison with the gold standard method C. Twelve out of fourteen measurements were clinically acceptable (below 2 mm or 2 degrees). Method A shows the highest deviation in the pitch-orientation for rotation (2.51 degrees, 95% CI [1.756 … 3.272]), while method B shows a higher deviation along the y-axis (1.85 mm, 95% CI [1.224 … 2.467]).
conclusionsThis study shows promising results of non-ionizing methods to integrate intra-oral scans into 3D stereophotogrammetric images. With improved accuracy in pitch in method A and translation along the Y-axis in method B, all measurements will be within the clinically acceptable threshold. However, since these two measurements exceed the clinically acceptable thresholds, the complete model positioning is less accurate. Therefore the main goal in further research should be to improve the accuracy of the pitch in method A and the translation along the Y-axis in method B. Additionally, for clinical use the biggest improvement could be gained by optimizing the clinical workflow and data processing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By using a non-ionizing 3D fusion model instead of a conventional cephalogram for treatment planning, the ionizing dose during orthodontic treatment can be significantly reduced.
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.