Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32678176›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Assessing mandibular body changes in growing subjects: a comparison of CBCT and reconstructed lateral cephalogram measurements.

Cinzia Maspero, Marco Farronato, Francesca Bellincioni, Davide Cavagnetto, Andrea Abate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluating 3D Morphometrics for Assessing Micrognathia in Neonates with Severe Pierre Robin Sequence: A Case-Control Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cinzia MasperoDepartment of Biomedical Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20142, Milan, Italy. cinzia.maspero@gmail.com.
Marco FarronatoDepartment of Biomedical Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20142, Milan, Italy.
Francesca BellincioniDepartment of Biomedical Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20142, Milan, Italy.
Davide Cavagnetto *Department of Biomedical Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20142, Milan, Italy.
Andrea Abate *Department of Biomedical Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20142, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and bi-dimensional reconstructed lateral cephalograms (RLCs) in assessing mandibular body length and growth and to evaluate how mandibular reshaping influences the error in measuring mandibular body growth in bi-dimensional radiographs. Twenty-five patients with two CBCT scans taken at a mean distance of 2.21 ± 0.5 years were selected. The following measurements were performed: right and left mandibular body length at each point in time, mandibular growth, inter-gonial distance and mandibular symphyseal angle. From each CBCT, an RLC was obtained, and mandibular body length and growth were measured. Data analysis revealed a statistically and clinically significant difference in CBCT and RLC regarding the mandibular length of each patient at each point in time. However, mandibular growth was almost identical. A linear regression was performed to predict growth distortion between RLCs and CBCT depending on the ratio between transverse and sagittal mandibular growth. The expected maximum and minimum distortion, however, appeared not to be significant. In fact, a second linear regression model and a Bland-Altman test revealed a strong correlation between measurements of average mandibular body growth by CBCT and RLCs. As the same distortion occurs in the first and second RLCs, bi-dimensional radiographs remain the method of choice in evaluating mandibular body growth.

Indexed as

CephalometryCone-Beam Computed TomographyDentistryHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMandibleModels, TheoreticalSpiral Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Identifiers

PMID32678176
PMCPMC7366618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.