ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry vs. standard measurements for soft tissue and dental arches analysis in cleft lip and palate: Systematic review.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCleft lip and palate (CLP) are the most prevalent congenital anomalies, often resulting in impaired maxillofacial complex in all three planes of space and maxillary growth deficiency, leading to aesthetic and functional challenges. Traditional methods like calipers and rulers have limitations in precision, reproducibility, and volumetric capture for soft tissues (ST) and dental arches (DA) in CLP patients. Three-Dimensional Stereophotogrammetry (3DS) offers a non-invasive digital alternative for accurate 3D imaging. The aim of this systematic review of comparative studies was to evaluate 3DS versus standard measurements (SM) for ST and DA analysis in CLP. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis study identified comparative studies in humans. Six electronic databases were searched to find articles meeting the eligibility criteria up to December 2025, without language or date restrictions. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed using the 4-stage quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). Data on outcomes of interest were extracted and tabulated. Due to methodological heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was performed, with quantitative evaluation where possible; no meta-analysis was conducted.
resultsFrom 788 records (413 PubMed, 150 ScienceDirect, 47 Scopus, 34 Web of Science, 8 Cochrane, 136 manual/gray literature), 85 underwent full-text review, yielding 7 studies (269 patients, mean age 12 years, primarily unilateral CLP). Despite methodological heterogeneity among studies, 3DS marked different landmarks in the cleft area (CA) and DA models. There was individual consensus on the accuracy and reproducibility of 3DS markings compared to other methods, and all studies showed low risk of bias in applicability and no meta-analysis due to variability.
conclusionsAll included studies demonstrated that, despite minor methodological differences, digital measurements using 3DS in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) were more accurate and highly reliable than SM. Future standardized studies are needed for meta-analysis.
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.