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 crosssectional 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 landmarkbased 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. (Angle Orthod. 2018;88:233-245.)

Introduction Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images can be superimposed, allowing three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of craniofacial growth/treatment effects. Limitations of 3D superimposition techniques are related to imaging quality, software/hardware performance, reference areas chosen, and landmark points/volumes identification errors. The aims of this research are to determine/compare the intra-rater reliability generated by three 3D superimposition methods using CBCT images, and compare the changes observed in treated cases by these methods. Methods Thirty-six growing individuals (11–14 years old) were selected from patients that received orthodontic treatment. Before and after treatment (average 24 months apart) CBCTs were analyzed using three superimposition methods. The superimposed scans with the two voxel-based methods were used to construct surface models and quantify differences using SlicerCMF software, while distances in the landmark-derived method were calculated using Excel. 3D linear measurements of the models superimposed with each method were then compared. Results Repeated measurements with each method separately presented good to excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC ≥ 0.825). ICC values were the lowest when comparing the landmark-based method and both voxel-based methods. Moderate to excellent agreement was observed when comparing the voxel-based methods against each other. The landmark-based method generated the highest measurement error. Conclusions Findings indicate good to excellent intra-examiner reliability of the three 3D superimposition methods when assessed individually. However, when assessing reliability among the three methods, ICC demonstrated less powerful agreement. The measurements with two of the three methods (CMFreg/Slicer and Dolphin) showed similar mean differences; however, the accuracy of the results could not be determined.

The current evidence may point to a protective association, however, as uncertainty is moderate, any suggestion that breast feeding may or may not decrease the risk of SDB is currently unwarranted. More research on the topic is required to resolve some of the contradictions between included studies.