ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
Differences in linear and angular measurement of the lower facial third in lateral cephalometry and lateral photometry: A comparative study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- FDA-Approved AI Solutions in Dental Imaging: A Narrative Review of Applications, Evidence, and Outlook.International dental journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In clinical orthodontic practice, to evaluate aesthetics in dentistry, lateral cephalometry and lateral photometry are used to measure and assess craniofacial morphology. In contrast to cephalometry, photometry has no radiation hazard and is less expensive. There has been a paradigm shift in contemporary orthodontics that now emphasizes soft tissue aesthetics, rather than depending entirely on hard tissue evaluation from lateral cephalometry. Therefore, the key question is whether lateral photometry can be a substitute for conventional cephalometry for diagnostics, prognostic analysis, and treatment planning. Objective: To differentiate between lateral cephalometry and lateral photometry measurement in children with stage 2 and 3 vertebrae maturation in the Deutero Malay population. Materials and Methods: A standardized protocol was followed for all lateral cephalograms and photographs from 38 subjects who met the inclusion criteria. Three parameters focusing on the lower third craniofacial measurement were investigated: two linear parameters (mandibular ramus length and mandibular length) and one angular parameter (gonial angle). These parameters were measured using Webceph software. All parameters were digitized on both cephalograms and photographs and were compared using an independent sample Results: When comparing the angular cephalometric and photometric variables, we found that the mandible length (Go-Me) and gonial angle (∠Go) in the cephalometry measurements had an insignificant difference compared to the photometric measurements, while the ramus length (Co-Go) in the cephalometry measurement had a significant difference compared to the photometric measurements. Conclusion: Although we cannot rule out cephalometry as the primary record in orthodontics, lateral photometry assessment can be used as an alternative candidate for measuring mandibular body measurements and gonial angle in stage 2 and 3 cervical maturation in the Deutero Malay race.
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.