ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Evaluating the compatibility of the 2D and 3D facial soft tissue depth measurement methods.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic facial approximation is a technique that involves constructing the facial muscles and applying a suitable facial soft tissue depth (FSTD) dataset. To date, several FSTD studies have been conducted for varying population groups by using different FSTD measurement methods (i.e., needle puncture, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) FSTD measurement methods). This study aims to compare the 2D and 3D FSTD measurement methods. The facial depths of subjects were measured using 100 head CT scans of 50 male and 50 female subjects aged between 18 and 99. For the 3D method, the 3D head and skull models of individuals were created by using the Histogram method to segment the CT images in Amira 6.1. Subsequently, the 3D depth measurements were obtained from the 3D head and skull models at 15 (4 mid-sagittal and 11 bilateral) cranial landmarks. For the 2D method, the FSTD measurements were directly taken from the CT slices at the same cranial landmarks as the 3D method. The intra- and inter-observer errors of the measurements were assessed using a repeated measures MANOVA. Similarly, the discrepancies between the FSTD datasets obtained using the 2D and 3D methods were evaluated using a repeated measures MANOVA. The depth differences between the two FSTD datasets were statistically significant, yet they were negligible from a practical point of view.
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.