ArticlePloS one2025
Clinical analysis and comparative study of facial symmetry of three-dimensional skull models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
Facial symmetry is a critical determinant in maxillofacial reconstruction. To establish an ideal midsagittal plane (MSP) for three-dimensional (3D) skull model in the diagnosis and treatment of maxillofacial reconstructing and unilateral maxillofacial lesions, the maxillofacial spiral computed tomography data from 51 patients with normal craniofacial anatomy in the Department of Stomatology, The General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China, were collected to performed 3D reconstruction. Every 3D skull model established three common MSPs: N-ANS-PNS, N-ANS-S, and N-Ba-S by corresponding anatomical landmarks. The original 3D skull models were mirrored using different MSPs to construct mirror models. The MSPs accuracy was assessed through repeated measures analysis combined with the 3D chromatic deviation mapping. Quantitative comparisons revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in overlap precision across MSP definitions. Mean deviation values (± SD) between the mirror and original models of N-ANS-PNS, N-ANS-S, and N-Ba-S were -1.1415 ± 0.6651, -0.9075 ± 0.6279, and -0.3961 ± 0.7970 mm respectively. Gender-based analysis demonstrated significantly better facial symmetry in female models compared to males across all MSP definitions (P < 0.05), while demographic factors (age, height, and weight) showed no statistically significant correlation with symmetry outcomes (P > 0.05). These findings validate the efficacy of mirroring technology combined with 3D chromatic deviation mapping for MSP accuracy assessment. The N-ANS-PNS plane emerged as the most reliable reference for facial symmetry evaluation in 3D skull models, with female morphology exhibiting inherently superior bilateral symmetry compared to male counterparts.
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.