ReviewCureus2026
Evaluation of Reproducibility and Accuracy of Facial Soft Tissue Landmarks in Individuals Assessed Using Various 3D Face Scanning Modalities: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmark assessment across different three-dimensional face scanning modalities used in dentofacial practice. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025628750). Electronic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar identified studies assessing facial soft tissue landmarks using 3D facial scanning systems and reporting accuracy and/or reproducibility outcomes. Eighteen cross-sectional studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 498 participants. The included modalities spanned photogrammetry, laser scanning, stereophotogrammetry, structured-light scanning, and smartphone-based depth/photogrammetry workflows. Comparator methods included direct anthropometry, manual measurements, electromagnetic digitizers, geometric references, 2D photographs, stereophotogrammetry reference systems, and cone beam computed tomography-derived soft tissue models. Accuracy was evaluated in 13 studies, while reproducibility or reliability was reported in all 18 studies. Most studies reported clinically acceptable landmark accuracy and repeatability under standardized conditions, with stronger and more consistent performance generally seen with stereophotogrammetry and structured-light systems. Smartphone-based systems also showed promising and often clinically acceptable results, although performance was more variable across facial regions, particularly in lateral landmarks. Reproducibility was typically better for well-defined midline landmarks than for less distinct lateral soft tissue points. Owing to substantial heterogeneity in scanner types, landmark protocols, comparator standards, and outcome metrics, meta-analysis was not performed and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Overall, 3D facial scanning appears suitable for soft tissue landmark assessment, but careful device selection and standardized protocols remain essential.
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.