ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Interobserver reliability in the 3D facial scan assessment of the outcome in dermal filler therapy.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designWe conducted a prospective cohort study comparing interobserver reliability of 2 different 3D scanning measurement methods following dermal filler therapy in oral cleft patients. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: The objective of the study was to compare the interobserver reliability of 2 different assessment methods of 3D facial scan data.
methodsWe studied 10 oral-cleft patients prospectively who underwent dermal filler therapy in the oral region by a single oral-surgeon using a modified injecting technique with 27 gauge 25 mm micro-cannula between 2021 and 2023. 3D facial scans were made before the treatment procedure and during follow-up visits and were used for analysis. The interbody fusion was scored on these 3D images using the 2 classification systems (Method 1, Method 2) by 3 experienced orthodontic specialists all of whom were blinded to clinical data and outcome.
resultsOf the 2 classifications included in the current study, all classifications had a high interobserver agreement.
conclusionThe 2 assessment methods used in this study showed high interobserver reliability so we can conclude that, the applied methods may provide as a validation in the outcome of dermal filler therapy. However, we suggest that further refinements may be required to achieve a reliable and consistent assessment of 3D facial scan analysis after dermal filler therapy in oral cleft patients.
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.