ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Trueness and precision of smartphone-based 3D scan in the assessment of facial edema in orthognathic surgery.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
Background: Although smartphone-based 3D facial scanning represents a low-cost tool for evaluating edema in maxillofacial surgery, evidence regarding its accuracy for clinical applications remains scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the trueness and precision of Qlone3D Scanner for smartphone in assessing postoperative edema following orthognathic surgery. Methods: This is a trueness and precision study. 3D facial reconstruction of computed tomography (CT) scans served as standard-reference. Both 3D facial models were converted to.STL format and imported to CloudCompare 2.14 for comparative mesh-to-mesh analysis. Trueness was defined by the proximity of smartphone-based scans to CT scans, while precision was assessed through comparison of subsequent smartphone-based scans. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0. Results: Twenty-one participants were included. Trueness analysis showed similar average distance between mesh points in both preoperative (2.03 ± 0.74 mm) and postoperative (2.00 ± 0.68 mm). Precision analysis showed variability in the average distance between mesh points, with a mean of 2.97 ± 3.15 mm in preoperative period and of 1.89 ± 1.51 mm in postoperative period. No statistically significant differences were observed between preoperative and postoperative trueness or precision measurements (p > 0.05). The lower third of the face exhibited the greatest areas of divergence between mesh points. Conclusion: Postoperative facial edema did not significantly affect the trueness or precision of the Qlone3D Scanner. However, limitations in accurate surface reproduction were identified, restricting its applicability primarily to edema monitoring and underscoring the need for further refinement to ensure reliable clinical and research use.
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.