ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Accuracy of facial scan registration: A comparison between full-cranium and reduced field-of-view cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are the results of the Wits appraisal clinically interchangeable when evaluating 2D and 3D images? : A CBCT-dataset method-comparison study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Comparison of virtual treatment planning outcomes designed by two commercially available software in treatment of anterior teeth crowding using in-house aligners.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
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
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of facial scan (FS) to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration by comparing superimpositions on full-cranium and reduced field-of-view (FOV) CBCT, with the goal of assessing its potential to reduce radiation exposure without compromising diagnostic quality. Materials and methods: CBCT scans from 50 patients were analyzed, integrating FS data obtained via 3D laser scanning. FSs were registered to both full-cranium and reduced FOV CBCT using landmark-based matching and a best-fit algorithm. Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the point-to-point surface distance between FS and CBCT soft-tissue renderings. The metrics used were root mean square distance (RMSD), Hausdorff distance (HD), and median distance (MD). Registration of FS onto full FOV CBCT served as the ground truth. Statistical analysis employed the Mann-Whitney U test to compare registration performance on both the overall surface and the facial midline. Results: There was no significant difference in HD ( Conclusion: FS registration to reduced FOV CBCT provides clinically acceptable accuracy, particularly in the midline region, while substantially reducing radiation exposure. This approach is promising for a range of dental applications, especially in pediatric cases and situations prioritizing facial aesthetics. Further research is warranted to optimize this technique for diverse clinical contexts.
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.