ArticleOdontology2025
Feasibility of craniofacial landmark plotting on magnetic resonance images.
Article in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several drawbacks of 2D radiography have been addressed by the use of 3D modalities such as CT/CBCT. However, these are associated with significantly increased radiation exposure. Hence, the role of MRI in routine orthodontic planning needs to be further investigated. The objective of the work is to evaluate feasibility of plotting cephalometric landmarks on MRI scans. 40 MRI images were collected randomly and retrospectively irrespective of age, sex, and ethnicity. For plotting purposes, 41 landmarks were found for every anonymized image separately. Two experienced orthodontists completed landmark plotting at two different time intervals. The mean error of landmark plotting, standard deviation, correlation coefficients and t-test were computed to assess the feasibility of landmark plotting on the three axes. The correlation coefficient of 0.9 indicated strong inter-observer reliability for each of the 41 landmarks on the x, y, and z axes. The paired t-test for each landmark revealed negligible differences in the orientation of the volume-rendered images. Out of all the landmarks, Porion and Orbitale had the most localization errors. MRI is a reliable tool for plotting cephalometric landmarks and thus for conducting cephalometric analyses. The landmarks' anatomical placements on the midline, bilateral, and curved structures affect how consistently they are identified. The radiation exposure to the patient for the acquisition of CT/CBCT images can be eliminated for performing 3D cephalometric analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40064745What 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.