OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature concerning the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods when assessing changes in craniofacial hard tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched. Two authors independently reviewed potentially relevant articles for eligibility. Clinical trials, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that evaluated the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods on the anterior cranial base were included. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four studies used the voxel-based registration method, one used the landmark-based method and one used the surface-based method. Regarding reliability, the voxel-based studies showed on average a difference of 0.5 mm or less between images. The optimized analysis using a six-point correction algorithm in the landmark-based method showed 1.24 mm magnitude of error between images. CONCLUSIONS: Although reliability appears to be adequate, the small sample size and high risk of bias among studies make available evidence still insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature concerning the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods when assessing changes in craniofacial hard tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched. Two authors independently reviewed potentially relevant articles for eligibility. Clinical trials, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that evaluated the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods on the anterior cranial base were included. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four studies used the voxel-based registration method, one used the landmark-based method and one used the surface-based method. Regarding reliability, the voxel-based studies showed on average a difference of 0.5 mm or less between images. The optimized analysis using a six-point correction algorithm in the landmark-based method showed 1.24 mm magnitude of error between images. CONCLUSIONS: Although reliability appears to be adequate, the small sample size and high risk of bias among studies make available evidence still insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
Authors: Manuel O Lagravère; Corey Low; Carlos Flores-Mir; Raymund Chung; Jason P Carey; Giseon Heo; Paul W Major Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Alexandre Motta; William R Proffit; James L Ackerman; Martin Styner Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Gavin C Heymann; Lucia Cevidanes; Marie Cornelis; Hugo J De Clerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Gavin Heymann; Marie A Cornelis; Hugo J DeClerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Rania M Nada; Thomas J J Maal; K Hero Breuning; Stefaan J Bergé; Yehya A Mostafa; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hugo Gaêta-Araujo; André Ferreira Leite; Karla de Faria Vasconcelos; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Deepal Haresh Ajmera; Richard Tai-Chiu Hsung; Pradeep Singh; Natalie Sui Miu Wong; Andy Wai Kan Yeung; Walter Yu Hang Lam; Balvinder S Khambay; Yiu Yan Leung; Min Gu Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.606