ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Precision of orthodontic cephalometric measurements on ultra low dose-low dose CBCT reconstructed cephalograms.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of the registration of a digital dental cast or intraoral scan into a stereophotogrammetric image of the face: a systematic review.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of conventional two-dimensional and digital three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics : A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Pooled it
- Is mandibular posterior dento-alveolar intrusion essential in treatment of skeletal open bite in adult patients? A single center randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Facial Surface Models Generated from Repeated CT and CBCT Scans: An Ex Vivo Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ultra-low-dose cone-beam CT for cleft and craniofacial deformity surgery: radiation reduction and clinical applicability.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 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
- Hard- and soft-tissue changes after adult Class II Division 1 orthodontic treatment: a retrospective CBCT-based observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in estimating the 18-year age threshold: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effects of exposure time and voxel size on measured alveolar bone thickness in cone-beam computed tomography: AnImaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Head and Neck Imaging with a Dental CBCT Device: Comparison of 360° and 180° Rotation Angles in Effective Dose and Quantitative Image Quality in a Phantom StudyCurrent medical imaging · 2025Article
- Image fusion-based low-dose CBCT enhancement method for visualizing miniscrew insertion in the infrazygomatic crest.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- The use of CBCT in orthodontics with special focus on upper airway analysis in patients with sleep-disordered breathing.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Comparative Assessment of Various Cephalometric Parameters Used for Determining Vertical Skeletal Dysplasia.Cureus · 2024Article
- MRI-based cephalometrics: a scoping review of current insights and future perspectives.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- The "Dedicated" C.B.C.T. in Dentistry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The Reliability of Two- and Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Measurements: A CBCT Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze differences in variation of orthodontic diagnostic measurements on lateral cephalograms reconstructed from ultra low dose-low dose (ULD-LD) cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans (RLC) as compared to variation of measurements on standard lateral cephalograms (SLC), and to determine if it is justifiable to replace a traditional orthodontic image set for an ULD-LD CBCT with a reconstructed lateral cephalogram. MATERIAL AND
methodsULD-LD CBCT images and SLCs were made of forty-three dry human skulls. From the ULD-LD CBCT dataset, a lateral cephalogram was reconstructed (RLC). Cephalometric landmarks (13 skeletal and 7 dental) were identified on both SLC and RLC twice in two sessions by two calibrated observers. Thirteen cephalometric variables were calculated. Variations of measurements, expressed as standard deviations of the 4 measurements on SLC and RLC, were analyzed using a paired sample t-test. Differences in the number of observations deviating ≥ 2.0 mm or degrees from the grand mean between SLC and RLC were analyzed using a McNemar test.
resultsMean SDs for 7 out of 13 variables were significantly smaller for SLCs than those for RLCs, but differences were small. For 9 out of 13 variables, there was no significant difference between SLC and RLC for the number of measurements outside the range of 2 mm or degrees.
conclusionsBased on the lower radiation dose and the small differences in variation in cephalometric measurements on reconstructed LC compared to standard dose LC, ULD-LD CBCT with reconstructed LC should be considered for orthodontic diagnostic purposes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ULD-LD CBCT with reconstructed LC should be considered for orthodontic purposes.
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.