SynthesisOral radiology2021
Nature and clinical significance of incidental findings in maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Oral radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidental findings from cone-beam computed tomography in children and adolescents: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Multimodal Large Language Models and Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists in the Detection of Incidental Findings on Panoramic Radiographs: A CBCT-Referenced Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Opportunistic investigation of vascular calcification using 3-dimensional dental imaging.Imaging science in dentistry · 2024Article
- Dental and Maxillofacial Cone Beam CT-High Number of Incidental Findings and Their Impact on Follow-Up and Therapy Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review was conducted to assess the types, potential clinical significance, and treatment implications of incidental findings (IFs) in CBCT diagnostic imaging of the maxillofacial region. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe authors searched several electronic databases and grey literature without time restriction for studies on the IFs in maxillofacial CBCT. Studies that classified the IFs based on their potential clinical significance were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by the STROBE criteria.
resultsThe online searches of the electronic databases yielded 1323 records. Five articles were included in the final qualitative analysis. The methodological quality ranged from low to moderate risk of bias. Percentages of IFs with high (requiring intervention/referral), moderate (requiring monitoring), and low clinical significance ranged from 0.3 to 31.4%, 15.6 to 28.9%, and 43.46 to 71.1%, respectively. There was an inconsistency between the studies in the clinical significance of 58.8% of the IFs identified.
conclusionMost IFs in maxillofacial CBCT are either normal variants or findings that do not require referral or treatment. There was no clear consensus on the recommended management of most common IFs. The lack of consensus on clinical significance emphasizes the importance of collaboration between medical and dental specialties to establish professional guidelines for the management of commonly encountered IFs in CBCT.
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.