ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2022
Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an Automatic Cephalometric Superimposition Method Based on Feature Matching.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Craniofacial growth prediction models based on cephalometric landmarks in Korean and American children.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Evaluation of automated photograph-cephalogram image integration using artificial intelligence models.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Does artificial intelligence predict orthognathic surgical outcomes better than conventional linear regression methods?The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Stability of fiducial cephalometric landmarks of growing Class II malocclusion patients: a three-dimensional retrospective study.The Angle orthodontist · 2022Article
- Lateral Cephalograms as Valuable Antemortem Tools in Forensic Identification of Individuals during Mass Disasters: An Orthodontic Perspective.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if an automated superimposition method using six landmarks (Sella, Nasion, Porion, Orbitale, Basion, and Pterygoid) would be more suitable than the traditional Sella-Nasion (SN) method to evaluate growth changes. MATERIALS AND
methodsSerial lateral cephalograms at an average interval of 2.7 years were taken on 268 growing children who had not undergone orthodontic treatment. The T1 and T2 lateral images were manually traced. Three different superimposition methods: Björk's structural method, conventional SN, and the multiple landmark (ML) superimposition methods were applied. Bjork's structural method was used as the gold standard. Comparisons among the superimposition methods were carried out by measuring the linear distances between Anterior Nasal Spine, point A, point B, and Pogonion using each superimposition method. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors that could affect the accuracy of the superimpositions.
resultsThe ML superimposition method demonstrated smaller differences from Björk's method than the conventional SN method did. Greater differences among the cephalometric landmarks tested resulted when: the designated point was farther from the cranial base, the T1 age was older, and the more time elapsed between T1 and T2.
conclusionsFrom the results of this study in growing patients, the ML superimposition method seems to be more similar to Björk's structural method than the SN superimposition method. A major advantage of the ML method is likely to be that it can be applied automatically and may be just as reliable as manual superimposition methods.
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.