ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Using computed tomography, photogrammetry & structured light scanning for measuring human mandibles: a comparison of metric analysis using various 3D imaging technologies.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aims to determine if photogrammetry and/or structured light scanning (SLS) can be used as alternatives for conducting metric assessments on mandibles as opposed to computed tomography (CT). Identifying alternative imaging options to CT is important as, although CT is accurate and reliable, there are multiple limitations that impact its accessibility, including cost, portability, and ease of learning. Photogrammetry and SLS are two handheld, lightweight, cost-effective alternatives that are relatively user friendly. Therefore, this paper imaged 33 human mandibles using CT, photogrammetry, and SLS. For intra-observer error, the ICC results were between 0.37 and 1, indicating a range of unreliable to excellent measurements. Almost all TEM results were within the acceptable threshold set for this study (< 2). Despite graphical demonstrations of the measurements being provided to the observers, all inter-observer results were unreliable, indicating that further refinement of these definitions is required before a protocol can be developed. However, all inter-modality assessments were within the acceptable threshold (< 5 TEM). The range for the ICC results for CT v photogrammetry was between 0.37 and 0.88. For CT v SLS, the results were between 0.47 and 0.87. Overall, photogrammetry had the highest degree of consistency with CT, but all methods proved to be interchangeable. This paper highlights that alternative imaging options are available in scenarios where CT cannot be accessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42517898What 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.