ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of 3D radiological skull measurements: reoriented sections and geometric correction versus caliper reference.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThree-dimensional radiological imaging is important for disease diagnosis and surgical planning, yet its accuracy in anatomical length measurements remains challenging. Standard sections calculations often underestimate actual dimensions due to orthographic projection distortions. This study evaluates the accuracy of reoriented section measurements and formula-based calculations compared to standard sections and reference caliper verifications.
methodsA plastic human skull model was used for standardized length measurements. Five cranial dimensions (Ma-G, Ma-N, Ma-Rh, Ma-Ns, Ma-Me) were measured using a digital caliper as the reference. A computed tomography scan with a slice thickness of 0.625 mm was performed, and measurements were obtained from standard sections (sagittal, transverse, coronal), reoriented section, and formula-based calculations. Measurement agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and repeated-measures ANOVA.
resultsReoriented sections values (e.g., Ma-G: 13.18 ± 0.52 cm, Ma-N: 12.59 ± 0.24 cm) and formula-based calculations (e.g., Ma-G: 13.15 ± 0.26 cm, Ma-N: 12.61 ± 0.80 cm) closely matched caliper measurements (p > 0.05). In contrast, standard section parameters were significantly lower across all parameters (e.g., Ma-G sagittal: 12.03 ± 0.48 cm, p = 0.0005; coronal: 7.39 ± 0.56 cm, p < 0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed high agreement for reoriented sections and formula-based methods, whereas standard sections showed significant deviations (p < 0.05).
conclusionReoriented sections findings and formula-based calculations offer accuracy comparable to caliper measurements, while standard sections results consistently underestimate the reference caliper values. These findings highlight the limitations of standard-section approaches and suggest that alternative methods may improve anatomical assessment in 3D imaging. These techniques may help reduce measurement-related discrepancies in settings requiring precise anatomical assessment. Such precision may be relevant in fields such as orthodontics, orthopedics, and implant planning, where accurate anatomical measurements are important.
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.