↓ Skip to main content

Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 229)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of 2D lateral cephalometry in orthodontics: a systematic review
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/2196-1042-14-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana R Durão, Pisha Pittayapat, Maria Ivete B Rockenbach, Raphael Olszewski, Suk Ng, Afonso P Ferreira, Reinhilde Jacobs

Abstract

Lateral cephalometric radiography is commonly used as a standard tool in orthodontic assessment and treatment planning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the available scientific literature and existing evidence for the validation of using lateral cephalometric imaging for orthodontic treatment planning. The secondary objective was to determine the accuracy and reliability of this technique. We did not attempt to evaluate the value of this radiographic technique for other purposes. A literature search was performed using specific keywords on electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers selected relevant articles, corresponding to predetermined inclusion criteria. The electronic search was followed by a hand search of the reference lists of relevant papers. Two reviewers assessed the level of evidence of relevant publications as high, moderate or low. Based on this, the evidence grade for diagnostic efficacy was rated as strong, moderately strong, limited or insufficient. The initial search revealed 784 articles listed in MEDLINE (Ovid), 1,034 in Scopus and 264 articles in the Web of Science. Only 17 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative synthesis. Results showed seven studies on the role of cephalometry in orthodontic treatment planning, eight concerning cephalometric measurements and landmark identification and two on cephalometric analysis. It is surprising that, notwithstanding the 968 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, scientific evidence on the usefulness of this radiographic technique in orthodontics is still lacking, with contradictory results. More rigorous research on a larger study population should be performed to achieve full evidence on this topic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 154 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Postgraduate 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 36 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 62%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 42 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2013.
All research outputs
#3,418,211
of 21,735,696 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#13
of 229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,712
of 306,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,735,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 229 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.