Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31452392›Full record

ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2019

Impact of CBCT on treatment decision related to surgical removal of impacted maxillary third molars: does CBCT change the surgical approach?

Louise Hermann, Ann Wenzel, Lars Schropp, Louise Hauge Matzen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Guidelines for oral and maxillofacial imaging: COVID-19 considerations.Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Louise HermannSection of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Ann WenzelSection of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Lars SchroppSection of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Louise Hauge MatzenSection of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess factors influencing treatment decision for maxillary third molars referred for cone beam CT (CBCT). Parameters influencing the decision to treat and to remove either the maxillary second molar or third molar were pursued.

methods111 impacted maxillary third molars, clinically examined including a panoramic image, in 86 patients (mean age 26 years, range 15-55) were referred for CBCT on suspicion of pathology/root resorption in the second molar, based on information in the panoramic image. The following parameters were assessed from the patient's file, including the radiographic images: (1) third molar angulation; (2) initial treatment plan based on clinical examination and the panoramic image; (3) diagnoses based on information from CBCT; (4) treatment decision after additional CBCT information was available; (5) pre-/post-operative complications; (6) treatment of the maxillary second molar.

results70 cases (63.1%) underwent treatment, while 41 (36.9%) received no treatment. Change in treatment plan was registered in 65 cases (58.6%) after CBCT. In 12 cases (10.8%), treatment changed from removal of the third to removal of the second molar, while 25 (22.5%) were scheduled for removal in the initial treatment plan; but after CBCT, the decision was not to treat. If external root resorption involved the pulp of the second molar, there was an almost 17 times higher risk that this tooth was removed instead of the third molar (logistic regression analysis: odds ratio 16.8;

conclusionsFindings in CBCT often changed the treatment plan. Severe external root resorption observed in CBCT was the main decisive factor for removing the second instead of the third molar.

Indexed as

Molar, ThirdSpiral Cone-Beam Computed TomographyTooth, ImpactedAdolescentAdultCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansMaxillaMiddle AgedMolarRadiography, PanoramicYoung AdultCBCTMaxillaPanoramic imagingRadiographyThird molar

Identifiers

PMID31452392
PMCPMC6951100
OpenAlexW2970040135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.