ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Evaluating smartphone-based 3D imaging techniques for clinical application in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A comparative study with the vectra M5.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Feasibility and clinical utility of digital anthropometry for precise assessment of outcomes after post-bariatric reconstructive plastic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Smartphone-Based 3D Surface Imaging: A New Frontier in Digital Breast Assessment? Smartphone-Based Breast Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 3D anthropometry of the nasolabial region in children aged 3 to 9 months as reference database for clinical assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to clarify the applicability of smartphone-based three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging for clinical use in oral and maxillofacial surgery, comparing two smartphone-based approaches to the gold standard.
methodsFacial surface models (SMs) were generated for 30 volunteers (15 men, 15 women) using the Vectra M5 (Canfield Scientific, USA), the TrueDepth camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (Apple Inc., USA), and the iPhone 14 Pro with photogrammetry. Smartphone-based SMs were superimposed onto Vectra-based SMs. Linear measurements and volumetric evaluations were performed to evaluate surface-to-surface deviation. To assess inter-observer reliability, all measurements were performed independently by a second observer. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman analyses, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples, and Intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsPhotogrammetry-based SMs exhibited an overall landmark-to-landmark deviation of M = 0.8 mm (SD = ± 0.58 mm, n = 450), while TrueDepth-based SMs displayed a deviation of M = 1.1 mm (SD = ± 0.72 mm, n = 450). The mean volumetric difference for photogrammetry-based SMs was M = 1.8 cc (SD = ± 2.12 cc, n = 90), and M = 3.1 cc (SD = ± 2.64 cc, n = 90) for TrueDepth-based SMs. When comparing the two approaches, most landmark-to-landmark measurements demonstrated 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) of ≤ 2 mm. Volumetric measurements revealed LoA > 2 cc. Photogrammetry-based measurements demonstrated higher inter-observer reliability for overall landmark-to-landmark deviation.
conclusionBoth approaches for smartphone-based 3D surface imaging exhibit potential in capturing the face. Photogrammetry-based SMs demonstrated superior alignment and volumetric accuracy with Vectra-based SMs than TrueDepth-based SMs.
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.