Objectives The aim of this study was to determine whether orthognathic surgery is associated with any complications, and what type of complications may occur. Materials and methods Data were obtained using PubMed (MEDLINE), ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Embase Library, and an additional manual search. The titles and abstracts of the electronic search results were screened and evaluated by two observers for eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results A total of 1924 articles were identified, and we retained 44 articles for the final analysis. The Prisma diagram flowchart demonstrates our selection scheme. For the purpose of this study, the Cochrane data extraction form was modified. One review author extracted data from the included studies, and the second author checked all of the forms. The hierarchy of evidence classification from the UK NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was used to assess the level of evidence for the retrieved studies. Conclusions An evaluation of the obtained studies revealed the existence of a large number of varied complications associated with orthognathic surgery procedures. Clinical relevance Oral and maxillofacial surgeons, orthodontists, and the surgical team need to prevent such complications during preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods to increase the safety of orthognathic surgery procedures. This review was registered on http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42013004711.

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.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of volumetric analysis of teeth in vivo using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: The physical volume (Vw) of 24 bicuspids extracted for orthodontic purposes (16 were imaged with the I-CAT and 8 with the CB MercuRay) were determined using the water displacement technique. Corresponding pretreatment CBCT image data were uploaded into Amira 4.0 for segmentation and radiographic volume (Va). All measurements were performed twice by two observers. The statistical difference between Vw and Va was assessed using a paired t-test. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability were determined by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The overall mean Vw of teeth specimens was 0.553 ± 0.082 cm³, while the overall mean Va was 0.548 ± 0.079 cm³ (0.529 ± 0.078 cm³ for observer 1 and 0.567 ± 0.085 cm³ for observer 2). There were statistically significant differences between Va and Vw (P < .05). Between observer 1 and observer 2, Va measurements were statistically significantly different (P < .05). The interobserver and intraobserver correlation coefficient for Vw was high. Lastly, surface smoothing reduced the volume by 3% to 12%. Conclusions: In vivo determination of tooth volumes from CBCT data is feasible. The measurements slightly deviate from the physical volumes within −4% to 7%. Smoothing operations reduce volume measurements. Currently, no requirements for accuracy of volumetric determinations of tooth volume have been established.