ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2026
Digital vs. Direct Anthropometry with MetiSmile
Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional facial anthropometry is increasingly used in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Conventional face scanning systems such as Vectra
methodsValidation was performed on a standardized mannequin head in two phases. Phase 1 assessed mesh reproducibility under artificial lighting (AL), natural lighting (n-AL), and after mesh-refinement (AL-F). Landmark-based pre-registration with Iterative Closest Point refinement was applied; root-mean-square error (RMS) and distance maps were calculated. In phase 2, three observers (student, resident, consultant) performed 14 predefined linear measurements by direct anthropometry (DA) and digital anthropometry (DiA). Intra- and inter-observer reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsPhase 1 yielded mean RMS values of 0.041 mm (AL), 0.043 mm (n-AL), and 0.030 mm (AL-F), with largest deviations near eyes, alar regions, and lip commissures. Phase 2 showed excellent ICCs (≥0.997) and mean absolute DA-DiA differences of 0.25-0.33 mm, with only few differences > 2 mm.
conclusionThe MetiSmile
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.