ArticleScientific reports2018
3D cephalometric analysis using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: validation of accuracy and reproducibility.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can MRI be a potential substitute for CT in cephalometric analysis for radiation-free diagnoses?Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Article
- Simulation of Velopharyngeal Biomechanics Identifies Differences in Sphincter Pharyngoplasty Outcomes: A Matched Case-Control Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2024Article
- The intraoral permeability measurement as a screening for artifact formation by orthodontic products in MRI.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023Article
- MRI-based cephalometrics: a scoping review of current insights and future perspectives.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic compatibility of various fixed orthodontic retainers for head/neck MRI and dental MRI.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Dental MRI-only a future vision or standard of care? A literature review on current indications and applications of MRI in dentistry.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Review
- Retrospective investigation of the 3D effects of the Carriere Motion 3D appliance using model and cephalometric superimposition.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- SEMAC + VAT for Suppression of Artifacts Induced by Dental-Implant-Supported Restorations in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Imaging of Bone in the Head and Neck Region, is There More Than CT?Current radiology reports · 2022Review
- Angular changes in implants placed in the anterior maxillae of adults: a cephalometric pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- LEGO-compatible modular mapping phantom for magnetic resonance imaging.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Assessing mandibular body changes in growing subjects: a comparison of CBCT and reconstructed lateral cephalogram measurements.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging?European radiology · 2020Article
- In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Article
- Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Maxillary Sinus Changes in Growing Subjects: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Does craniofacial morphology affect third molars impaction? Results from a population-based study in northeastern Germany.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate geometric accuracy and in vivo reproducibility of landmark-based cephalometric measurements using high-resolution 3D Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) at 3 Tesla. For accuracy validation, 96 angular and 96 linear measurements were taken on a phantom in 3 different positions. In vivo MRI scans were performed on 3 volunteers in five head positions. For each in vivo scan, 27 landmarks were determined from which 19 angles and 26 distances were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using Bland-Altman analysis, the two one-sided tests procedure and repeated measures one-way analysis of variance. In comparison to ground truth, all MRI-based phantom measurements showed statistical equivalence (p < 0.001) and an excellent agreement in Bland-Altman analysis (bias ranges: -0.090-0.044°, -0.220-0.241 mm). In vivo cephalometric analysis was highly reproducible among the five different head positions in all study participants, without statistical differences for all angles and distances (p > 0.05). Ranges between maximum and minimum in vivo values were consistently smaller than 2° and 2 mm, respectively (average ranges: 0.88°/0.87 mm). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that accurate and reproducible 3D cephalometric analysis can be performed without exposure to ionizing radiation using MRI.
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.