Reliability of cephalometric superimposition for the assessment of craniofacial changes: a systematic review.

Graf, Carmen Camila; Dritsas, Konstantinos; Ghamri, Mohammed; Gkantidis, Nikolaos (2022). Reliability of cephalometric superimposition for the assessment of craniofacial changes: a systematic review. European journal of orthodontics, 44(5), pp. 477-490. Oxford University Press 10.1093/ejo/cjab082

	Text cjab082.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (1MB)
Preview	Text Manuscript_Ceph_SS_20220201_Clean.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (1MB) | Preview

BACKGROUND

Superimposition of serial cephalometric radiographs enables the assessment of craniofacial changes over time, and therefore, several methods have been suggested in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study is to summarize and critically evaluate the available evidence on the reliability of methods used to superimpose serial cephalometric radiographs.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases, without time limit (last update: 1 November 2020). Unpublished literature was searched on the Open Grey and Grey Literature Report databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that tested the accuracy, precision, or agreement between different cephalometric superimposition techniques, used to evaluate the craniofacial changes due treatment or growth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reference lists of relevant articles were screened and authors were contacted, if needed. All study selection steps, data extraction, and risk of bias (QUADAS-2 tool) assessments were performed independently by two authors on predefined forms.

RESULTS

There were 27 eligible studies. From these, 17 tested superimpositions methods on the anterior cranial base, 10 on the maxilla and 12 on the mandible. There were three studies that compared superimpositions on the cranial base with those on the maxilla and one that compared the cranial base with the mandibular superimposition. There was high heterogeneity among studies in terms of sample size, growth, radiographic machines, selection criteria, superimposition methods, references, and outcomes measured. Furthermore, almost all studies presented important methodological limitations, with only two studies having unclear risk of bias and the rest 25 presenting high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no cephalometric superimposition method that has been proved to deliver accurate results. There is an urgent need for further research in this topic, since this is a primary assessment method to assess craniofacial changes over time for several relevant disciplines.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020200349).

Interest & Impact

Downloads

77 since deposited on 21 Feb 2022
72 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item