ArticleBMC oral health2026
Geometric plane alignment as a methodological requirement for accurate angular measurement in three-dimensional craniofacial imaging.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate angular measurements derived from three-dimensional (3D) radiological imaging are essential for morphometric analysis, surgical planning, and implant design. However, measurements performed on standard sagittal, coronal, and transverse sections may not reflect true spatial geometry due to projection-related distortions. This study aimed to develop and validate a reoriented plane protocol to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of angular measurements in 3D imaging.Five anatomically accurate plastic skull models were used to define four craniofacial angles (∠Co-Id-Co, ∠Go-Gn-Go, ∠Co-Go-Gn, ∠N-Rza-Pr), and all measurements were independently performed by three observers. Direct goniometric measurements served as the reference standard. CT scans (0.625 mm slice thickness) were analyzed using standard sectional planes and a reoriented plane approach aligning the measurement plane with the true spatial configuration of landmarks. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and agreement was evaluated with Bland-Altman analyses.Goniometric measurements showed mean values of 55.8°±4.2°, 72.9°±4.9°, 113.5°±6.5°, and 36.5°±5.7° for the respective angles. Reoriented plane measurements produced nearly identical results with minimal bias (e.g., 0.002° for ∠Co-Go-Gn) and narrow limits of agreement. In contrast, standard sectional measurements demonstrated substantial deviations, with mean biases reaching - 36.47° in coronal sections. The reoriented plane method showed excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (ICC up to 0.950, p < 0.001).Aligning the measurement plane with the true landmark-defined plane significantly improves angular measurement accuracy and reproducibility in 3D radiological datasets, offering a robust methodological framework for clinical and research applications.
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.