ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2019
Incidental Findings in Dental Radiology are Concerning for Family Doctors.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nature and clinical significance of incidental findings in maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review.Oral radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- A retrospective study of incidental findings occurring in a consecutive case series of lateral cephalograms of 12- to 20-year-old patients referred for routine orthodontic treatment.Imaging science in dentistry · 2022Article
- Ossification of Pterygospinous Ligament: An Incidental Finding in Cone Beam Computed Tomography.The American journal of case reports · 2021Article
- [Applications of cone beam computed tomography of the craneofacial structure in medical specialties. A review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) is an imaging technology increasingly used in dentistry. Depending on the size of the examination area, visualization of anatomical structures outside the indication area may reveal incidental findings (IF). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to 1) evaluate the frequency, location and different types of incidental findings (IF) revealed during CBCT examinations; 2) identify potential influencing factors such as gender or age; 3) highlight what the family doctor should know about CBCT and the benefits for medical care. 70 retrospective studies were included. 60% of IF are in the naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses. Carotid calcifications were observed with a mean prevalence of 9% CI95% [2-21]). Meta-regression showed a significant association of this prevalence with age, irrespective of gender. Given the high frequency of IF, with varying severity, the whole medical community is fully involved, and its opinion should be sought to ensure the best possible management for the patients. Physicians may also require CBCT examinations that would have been previously prescribed by a dentist, that may serve to better orientate investigations toward another imaging technique. The family doctor is therefore the dentist's main interlocutor and the main coordinator of the follow-up of IF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.