ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Influence of patient motion on definition of typical cephalometric reference points in digital horizontally scanning cephalometric radiography.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of defined head-motion during x-ray exposure on the identification accuracy of typical cephalometric reference points.
methodsBy means of a dry adult human skull and a precise motion simulation system digital Cephs are acquired while certain predefined movement patterns (shift, tilt and nodding with a motion amplitude from 5 - 50 mm) of the skull were executed. They represent the movements of children and adolescents, the main group for cephalometric radiographs.The scanning time was 9.4 s per Ceph. 10 typical landmark points of cephalometric analysis were identified by 20 observers on each Ceph twice. Using a non-motion image (Ceph0) as reference, displacement was computed as vectors relative to this image. Commonly used angles and vertical and horizontal distances were calculated.
resultsBoth inter-rater as well as intra-rater-reproducibility were perfect. There was very little change in the vertical distance N-Me, in contrast to the horizontal distance S-N which showed a large variation. So patient motion parallel to the scanning direction of the fan-beam-detector unit, heavily influence distances parallel to this direction. The ANB angle and the Maxillo-Mandibular Plane Angle (ANS-PNS to Me-Go) only varied by about 1-2°.
conclusionsThe study observed a severe influence on reference point location of motion patterns parallel to the scanning direction and also on clinically relevant distances parallel to the scanning direction. Therefore, we recommend to use a horizontal scanning direction, to minimise scanning time to a minimum, or to prefer a one-shot technique if possible. Future advancements in this field may include the integration of artificial intelligence or algorithms for the purpose of motion correction.
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.