Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34520241›Full record

SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2022

Computed tomography imaging superimposition protocols to assess outcomes in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review with comprehensive recommendations.

Fernando de Oliveira Andriola, Orion Luiz Haas Junior, Raquel Guijarro-Martínez, Federico Hernández-Alfaro, Rogério Belle de Oliveira, Rogério Miranda Pagnoncelli, Gwen Rj Swennen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors.

Fernando de Oliveira AndriolaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7345-2938
Orion Luiz Haas JuniorDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Raquel Guijarro-MartínezDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Barcelona, Spain.
Federico Hernández-AlfaroDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Barcelona, Spain.
Rogério Belle de OliveiraDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rogério Miranda PagnoncelliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Gwen Rj SwennenDivision of Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende AV, Bruges, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA systematic review was performed to analyze the current evidence on three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) superimposition protocols used to assess dentomaxillofacial changes after orthognathic and orthofacial surgery. Accuracy, reproducibility, and efficiency were evaluated.

methodsThe search was divided into Main Search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and SciELO), Grey Literature search (Google Scholar and Open Grey), and Manual search. Thirteen studies were included. Of these, 10 reported data on accuracy, 10 on reproducibility and five on efficiency. Seven proposed or evaluated methods of voxel-based superimposition, three focused on the surface-based technique, one compared surface- and voxel-based superimposition protocols, one used the maximum mutual information algorithm, and one described a landmark-based superimposition method. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was the most common imaging technique, being used in 10 studies.

resultsThe accuracy of most methods was high, showing mean differences smaller than voxels' dimensions, ranging between 0.05 and 1.76 mm for translational accuracy, and 0.10-1.09° for rotational accuracy. The overall reproducibility was considered good as demonstrated by the small mean error (range: 0.01-0.26 mm) and high correlation coefficients (range: 0.53-1.00). Timing to complete virtual superimposition techniques ranged between a few seconds up to 40 min.

conclusionsVoxel-based superimposition protocols presented the highest accuracy and reproducibility. Moreover, superimposition protocols that used automated processes and involved only one software were the most efficient.

Indexed as

Orthognathic SurgeryClinical ProtocolsCone-Beam Computed TomographyFacial BonesHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalReproducibility of ResultsCone-beam computed tomographyDentofacial deformitiesImaging, Three-dimensionalMulti-detector computed tomographyOrthognathic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34520241
PMCPMC8925870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.