INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate accuracy and reproducibility of craniometric measurements and reliability of landmarks identified with computed tomography (CT) techniques in 3D cephalometric analysis. METHODS: Computerized and manual searches were conducted up to 2011 for studies that addressed these objectives. The selection criteria were: (1) the use of human specimen; (2) the comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometric analysis; (3) the assessment of accuracy, reproducibility of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with CT images compared with two-dimensional conventional radiographs. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used as the guideline for this article. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of them demonstrated high measurements accuracy and reproducibility, and landmarks reliability, but their cephalometric analysis methodology varied widely. CONCLUSION: These differencies among the studies in making measurements don't permit a direct comparison between them. The future developments in the knowledge of these techniques should provide a standardized method to conduct the 3D CT cephalometric analysis.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate accuracy and reproducibility of craniometric measurements and reliability of landmarks identified with computed tomography (CT) techniques in 3D cephalometric analysis. METHODS: Computerized and manual searches were conducted up to 2011 for studies that addressed these objectives. The selection criteria were: (1) the use of human specimen; (2) the comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometric analysis; (3) the assessment of accuracy, reproducibility of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with CT images compared with two-dimensional conventional radiographs. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used as the guideline for this article. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of them demonstrated high measurements accuracy and reproducibility, and landmarks reliability, but their cephalometric analysis methodology varied widely. CONCLUSION: These differencies among the studies in making measurements don't permit a direct comparison between them. The future developments in the knowledge of these techniques should provide a standardized method to conduct the 3D CT cephalometric analysis.
Authors: Carla R Moreira; Marcelo A O Sales; Patricia M L Lopes; Marcelo G P Cavalcanti Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2009-04-22
Authors: Manuel O Lagravère; Jillian M Gordon; Ines H Guedes; Carlos Flores-Mir; Jason P Carey; Giseon Heo; Paul W Major Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Danielle R Periago; William C Scarfe; Mazyar Moshiri; James P Scheetz; Anibal M Silveira; Allan G Farman Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.079