SynthesisThe Angle orthodontist2019
Reliability of different three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks in cone-beam computed tomography : A systematic review.
Synthesis in The Angle orthodontist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Recommendations for standard criteria for the positional and morphological evaluation of temporomandibular joint osseous structures using cone-beam CT: a systematic review.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy of automated 3D cephalometric landmarks by deep learning algorithms: systematic review and meta-analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2023Pooled it
- Methods of postural analysis in connection with the stomatognathic system. A systematic review.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Pooled it
- Two decades of research on CBCT imaging in DMFR - an appraisal of scientific evidence.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Are the results of the Wits appraisal clinically interchangeable when evaluating 2D and 3D images? : A CBCT-dataset method-comparison study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Left-Right Consistency and Quantification of Craniofacial Asymmetry by Two Fully Automatic AI-Powered Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Systems on CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical accuracy of cephalometric analysis using deep learning-based automated landmark identification on CBCT in class I and class II malocclusions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Longitudinal reliability of upper airway assessment using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Role of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA): A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Adaptation and validation of the Wylie cephalometric analysis for three-dimensional assessment of canine occlusion in Labrador retrievers.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Condylar alteration in three subtypes of temporomandibular disorder based on U-HRCT: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Expansion Pattern of Miniscrew Assisted Rapid Maxillary Expansion (MARPE) After Midpalatal Suture Separation: Clustering-Based Classification.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Comparison of the reliability of ANB Sar and W measurements used in cephalometric diagnostics for the assessment of sagittal discrepancy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Cone beam computed tomography analysis of anterior open bite management using clear aligners: a single-arm retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Selected Indicators Used in Cephalometric Analysis and Their Predictive Value in Defining Sagittal Discrepancy Malocclusions: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Repeatability and Reproducibility Levels of ANB, Tau and Yen Angle Measurements Used in Cephalometric Diagnostics in the Assessment of Sagittal Discrepancy: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of 3D Cephalometry Provided with Artificial Intelligence and Manual Tracing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the diagnostic ability of the Fränkel manoeuvre to detect the contributing jaw in angle class II division 1 malocclusion.BMC oral health · 2024Article
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
objectivesConventional two-dimensional (2D) cephalometric radiography is an integral part of orthodontic patient diagnosis and treatment planning. One must be mindful of its limitations as it indeed is a 2D representation of a vaster three-dimensional (3D) object. Issues with projection errors, landmark identification, and measurement inaccuracies impose significant limitations, which may now be overcome with the advent of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). A systematic review of the reliability of different 3D cephalometric landmarks in CBCT imaging was conducted. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic database searches were administered until October 2017 using PubMed, MEDLINE via OvidSP, EBMR and EMBASE via OvidSP, Scopus, and Web of Science. Google Scholar was used as an adjunctive search tool.
resultsThirteen articles considering CBCT scans of human subjects from preexisting data sets were selected and reviewed. Most of the studies had methodological limitations and were of moderate quality. Because of their heterogeneity, key data from each could not be combined and were reported qualitatively. Overall, in 3D, midsagittal plane landmarks demonstrated greater reliability compared with bilateral landmarks. A minimum number of dental landmarks were reported, although most were recommended for use.
conclusionsFurther research is required to evaluate the reliability of 3D cephalometric landmarks when evaluating 3D craniofacial complexes.
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.