ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
A Comparative Accuracy Study of Nasal Soft Tissue Measurements Using a 3D Facial Scanner and Conventional Methods.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comparative Accuracy Study of Nasal Soft Tissue Measurements Using a 3D Facial Scanner and Conventional Methods.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Analysis of facial morphology is a critical component in craniomaxillofacial prosthetics and surgery, serving purposes such as preoperative diagnosis, postoperative evaluation, and symmetry analysis. This study evaluated the accuracy of a structured-light 3D facial scanner for measuring facial soft tissues. Methods: Twenty-one adult participants were included in this study. A conventional alginate facial impression was obtained from each participant. 3D facial images were also captured using a digital face scanner. Six facial landmarks were identified and recorded on each 3D facial image. The 3D facial scanner and linear caliper measurements on facial casts were employed to measure the distances between landmarks. The accuracy of the 3D facial scanner was evaluated through reliability analysis and paired Results: The mean absolute error of the scanner ranged from 0.18 to 0.44 mm, and the mean relative error ranged from 0.00 to 0.02. Of all the measurements, 69.3% were reproduced within 0.3 mm, and 86.1% within 0.5 mm. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for all distances was greater than 0.9, demonstrating high consistency. Paired Conclusion: The findings suggest that the face scanner is a precise and reliable alternative for performing maxillofacial measurements.
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.