# Comparison of Manual and Automated Capillary Morphometry Measurements in Oral Mucosa: A Pilot Study
## 3 Results
### Density  
The comparison between the automated and manual methods for measuring capillary density revealed no statistically significant differences in most of the examined sites, although some variability was observed.  
* In the right buccal mucosa, the automated method yielded a mean density of 21.605 \(\pm\) 6.01 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), compared to 18.631 \(\pm\) 4.02 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) for the manual method, with a mean difference of 2.974 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.210).
* In the left buccal mucosa, the automated method recorded a mean density of 20.132 \(\pm\) 8.95 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), while the manual method reported 18.906 \(\pm\) 2.80 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), with a mean difference of 1.226 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.684).
* In the lower labial mucosa, the automated method showed a mean density of 26.063 \(\pm\) 9.37 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), compared to 21.881 \(\pm\) 5.80 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) for the manual method, with a mean difference of 4.182 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.246).
* In the upper labial mucosa, the automated method displayed a mean density of 25.973 \(\pm\) 6.30 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), versus 20.645 \(\pm\) 5.44 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) for the manual method, with a mean difference of 5.328 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.058).  
Across all sites, the automated method tended to report higher capillary density values compared to the manual method, with mean differences ranging between 1.226 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\) and 5.328 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\). However, these differences were not statistically significant (\(p\) > 0.05), except for the upper labial mucosa, where the \(p\)-value approached significance (\(p\) = 0.058). The data for both methods followed a normal distribution in all sites, as confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test (\(p\) > 0.05), except for the manual measurements in the upper labial mucosa, which showed a non-normal distribution (\(p\) = 0.004).  
These results suggest that, while the automated method tends to produce slightly higher density values, the differences are not statistically significant in most cases. This  
Figure 4: Bland–Altman plot of automated and manual caliber.  
indicates that the automated method may be a reliable alternative to the manual method for assessing capillary density, although further calibration and validation may be necessary to ensure consistency, particularly in sites where the manual method shows non-normal distribution or where the differences approach statistical significance.  
The mean difference between the two methods is 3.43 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), indicating a slight tendency of the automated method to report higher density values. However, the limits of agreement (\(\pm\)1.96 SD), ranging from \(-\)10.01 to 16.86 capillaries/mm\({}^{2}\), demonstrate that the variability remains within an acceptable range for most measurements (Figure 5). Importantly, the majority of data points fall within these limits, with only a few outliers, suggesting that the automated method provides a consistent and reliable alternative to manual assessment.