Ana Catarina Pinto
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Ana Catarina Pinto has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Duarte Marques
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Gonçalo Bártolo Caramês
Instituto de Implantologia, Avenida Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro, No. 50, 1070-064 Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Helena Francisco
Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade de Lisboa, 1600-277 Lisboa, Portugal
1 shared publication - João Caramês
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication - Rita Vanessa Aparício Aguiar Alves
Instituto de Implantologia, Avenida Columbano Bordalo Pinheiro, No. 50, 1070-064 Lisbon, Portugal
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 14 February 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 15 (4) , 1500
Facial Landmarks Determination with Different Digital Scanners: An In Vivo Study
Background: The development of facial scanning technology has introduced new methods for facial morphology analysis, progressively shifting from conventional methodology such as direct anthropometry and two-dimensional photography toward three-dimensional digital acquisition. These technologies aim to reduce operator subjectivity, enhance measurement reproducibility, and enable comprehensive facial analysis within digital workflows. Methods: Thirty adult volunteers were recruited and provided informed consent. In each participant, twenty-five predefined facial landmarks were identified and nineteen linear interlandmark distances were recorded using three methods: direct anthropometric measurement with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo®, USA), a low-cost portable facial scanner (Revopoint®), and a professional static facial scanner (RAYFace®). Manual anthropometry was used as a clinical refence standard. All measurements were performed by a single trained operator. Trueness was defined as the absolute difference between the reference measurements and the mean of digital measurements, while precision was defined as the standard deviation of repeated digital measurements. Results were expressed as mean values and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Overall precision was 0.58 (0.53; 0.62) mm for Revopoint® and 0.43 (0.39; 0.47) mm for RAYFace®, corresponding to precision percentages of 1.19 (1.06; 1.33) % and 0.88 (0.78; 0.97) %, respectively. Mean trueness values were 2.16 (2.01; 2.31) mm and 1.92 (1.80; 2.05) mm for conventional-Revopoint® and conventional-RAYFace®, corresponding to a trueness impact value of 4.30 (3.87; 4.74) % and 4.08 (3.61; 4.55) %, respectively. Statistically significant differences between scanners were observed for specific landmark locations. Conclusions: Within the methodological limitations of this in vivo study—including the use of manual anthropometry as a reference standard, a single-operator design and a predominantly female sample—both facial scanners demonstrated reproducible linear measurements within clinically acceptable thresholds for prosthodontic and esthetic planning applications. The professional static scanner showed superior accuracy, suggesting greater suitability for complex cases requiring higher precision.
- 14 February 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 15 (4) , 1500
Open AccessFacial Landmarks Determination with Different Digital Scanners: An In Vivo Study
Background: The development of facial scanning technology has introduced new methods for facial morphology analysis, progressively shifting from conventional methodology such as direct anthropometry and two-dimensional photography toward three-dimensional digital acquisition. These technologies aim to reduce operator subjectivity, enhance measurement reproducibility, and enable comprehensive facial analysis within digital workflows. Methods: Thirty adult volunteers were recruited and provided informed consent. In each participant, twenty-five predefined facial landmarks were identified and nineteen linear interlandmark distances were recorded using three methods: direct anthropometric measurement with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo®, USA), a low-cost portable facial scanner (Revopoint®), and a professional static facial scanner (RAYFace®). Manual anthropometry was used as a clinical refence standard. All measurements were performed by a single trained operator. Trueness was defined as the absolute difference between the reference measurements and the mean of digital measurements, while precision was defined as the standard deviation of repeated digital measurements. Results were expressed as mean values and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Overall precision was 0.58 (0.53; 0.62) mm for Revopoint® and 0.43 (0.39; 0.47) mm for RAYFace®, corresponding to precision percentages of 1.19 (1.06; 1.33) % and 0.88 (0.78; 0.97) %, respectively. Mean trueness values were 2.16 (2.01; 2.31) mm and 1.92 (1.80; 2.05) mm for conventional-Revopoint® and conventional-RAYFace®, corresponding to a trueness impact value of 4.30 (3.87; 4.74) % and 4.08 (3.61; 4.55) %, respectively. Statistically significant differences between scanners were observed for specific landmark locations. Conclusions: Within the methodological limitations of this in vivo study—including the use of manual anthropometry as a reference standard, a single-operator design and a predominantly female sample—both facial scanners demonstrated reproducible linear measurements within clinically acceptable thresholds for prosthodontic and esthetic planning applications. The professional static scanner showed superior accuracy, suggesting greater suitability for complex cases requiring higher precision.