ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Nasolabial shape and aesthetics in patients with cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. 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.
- A longitudinal three-dimensional analysis of nasolabial morphology following primary cheiloplasty of unilateral cleft lip deformity.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesIn individuals with cleft lip and palate, nasolabial asymmetry and dysmorphology are associated with lower aesthetic ratings, though this relationship remains unclear. This study examines how deviations in nasolabial shape from the average affect aesthetic ratings. MATERIALS/
methods3D stereophotogrammetric images were taken from 53 children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) (34 boys, 19 girls; mean age: 10.5 ± 0.6 years) and 53 age and sex-matched children without cleft. UCLP repair was performed by three experienced surgeons in a single stage at 8.2 ± 2.3 months. An average 3D nasolabial shape model of noncleft individuals was created via geometric morphometrics with 10 fixed points and 100 semilandmarks. The Procrustes distances of the noncleft average shape from each cleft shape quantified nasolabial dysmorphology, while 15 laypersons rated nasolabial aesthetics on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS; lower scores = poorer aesthetics). Internal rater-consistency was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlation analysis examined the relationship between aesthetics and nasolabial dysmorphology in the cleft group.
resultsThe mean ICC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78-0.91) indicated high consistency among the raters. The average aesthetic rating for the cleft group was 42.2 ± 16.5. The mean Procrustes distance was 0.0993 ± 0.0205. Greater deviation from the average noncleft shape was associated with lower aesthetic ratings (Pearson's r = -0.282, p = 0.041). LIMITATIONS: This single-centre, retrospective study may have selection bias and limited generalizability, with a predominantly prepubertal sample. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Nasolabial aesthetics is influenced by the degree of deviation from the average noncleft shape, although this relationship explains only a small portion of the variance (R2 = 0.08). Other factors likely contribute to nasolabial aesthetic ratings.
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.