Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063106›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2026

Can MRI be a potential substitute for CT in cephalometric analysis for radiation-free diagnoses?

Nalla Maheswara Rao, Navadeep Kaur, Shailendra Singh Rana, Abhishek Gupta, Sharvari Vichare, Anjana Rajagopalan, J Sivaraman, Kunal Pal, Bala Chakravarthy Neelapu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Nalla Maheswara RaoDepartment of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 769008, Sector 1, Rourkela, Odisha, India.
Navadeep KaurDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India.
Shailendra Singh RanaDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India.
Abhishek GuptaCSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organization, 160030, Chandigarh, India.
Sharvari VichareDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India.
Anjana RajagopalanDepartment of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India.
J SivaramanDepartment of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 769008, Sector 1, Rourkela, Odisha, India.
Kunal PalDepartment of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 769008, Sector 1, Rourkela, Odisha, India.
Bala Chakravarthy NeelapuDepartment of Biotechnology and Medical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 769008, Sector 1, Rourkela, Odisha, India. neelapubc@nitrkl.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) usage over computed tomography (CT) to perform three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analyses. The secondary objective is to find intra- and interobserver reliability of manual cephalometric landmarks identification in both CT and MRI scan data.

methodsData from 40 patients were used in this study, with orthodontists manually identifying 37 landmarks on both CT and MRI scans. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated individually for both CT and MRI scan data to find intra- and interobserver reliability. In addition to ICC, paired t‑test and mean error were also calculated. Ground truth landmarks were calculated by considering the mean values of manually located 37 landmarks by observers for both CT and MRI. Thirty-seven cephalometric measurements (29 linear, 6 angular, and 2 ratios) were measured using 37 ground truth landmarks. Mean error (ME) between CT and MRI measurements was calculated and paired t‑test was performed to find the reliability of MRI usage over CT. Bland-Altman analysis was also performed on the measurements to check the agreement between CT and MRI.

resultsThe intra- and interobserver reliability was found to be reliable (ICC > 0.98, and P > 0.05) for all 37 landmarks in both CT and MRI. The ME for linear measurements was found to be 1.81 mm for hard tissue, 1.72 mm for soft tissue, and 1.53° for hard tissue angular measurements between CT and MRI. The paired t‑test performed on measurements between CT and MRI proved to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). The Bland-Altman analysis also showed strong agreement and low systemic bias between CT and MRI data.

conclusionsThe strong ICC and P values shows the high reliability and reproducibility of manual landmark identification on both CT and MRI. The ME for the linear and angular measurements between CT and MRI was found to be well within acceptable limits. The results of paired t‑test and Bland-Altman analyses for cephalometric measurements between CT and MRI has shown strong evidence supporting the use of MRI as a substitute for CT.

Indexed as

CephalometryImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiation ProtectionTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentAdultAnatomic LandmarksFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBland–Altman analysisCephalometryComputed tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingOrthodontics

Identifiers

PMID40063106

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.