Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34424401›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2022

Orthodontists' criteria for prescribing cone-beam computed tomography-a multi-country survey.

Grasielle Manoel Caiado, Karine Evangelista, Maria do Carmo Matias Freire, Fabiana Tolentino Almeida, Camila Pacheco-Pereira, Carlos Flores-Mir, Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruelas, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos, Flavia Preda and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors.

Grasielle Manoel CaiadoDepartment of Stomatology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, 1a Avenida, S/N, esq. praça universitária, setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, 74605-220, Brazil.
Karine EvangelistaDepartment of Stomatology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, 1a Avenida, S/N, esq. praça universitária, setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, 74605-220, Brazil.
Maria do Carmo Matias FreireDepartment of Stomatology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, 1a Avenida, S/N, esq. praça universitária, setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, 74605-220, Brazil.
Fabiana Tolentino AlmeidaDivision of Oral Pathology and Radiology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, Canada.
Camila Pacheco-PereiraDivision of Oral Pathology and Radiology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, Canada.
Carlos Flores-MirDivision of Oral Pathology and Radiology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, Canada.
Lucia Helena Soares CevidanesDepartment of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, 500 S State St, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Antonio Carlos de Oliveira RuelasDepartment of Orthodontics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, Rio de Janeiro, 373, Brazil.
Karla de Faria VasconcelosDepartment of Imaging and Pathology & Department of Oral Health Sciences-Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Oude Markt 13, Leuven, Belgium.
Flavia PredaDepartment of Imaging and Pathology & Department of Oral Health Sciences-Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Oude Markt 13, Leuven, Belgium.
Guy WillemsDepartment of Imaging and Pathology & Department of Oral Health Sciences-Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Oude Markt 13, Leuven, Belgium.
Reinhilde JacobsDepartment of Imaging and Pathology & Department of Oral Health Sciences-Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Oude Markt 13, Leuven, Belgium.
José Valladares-NetoDepartment of Stomatology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, 1a Avenida, S/N, esq. praça universitária, setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, 74605-220, Brazil.
Maria Alves Garcia SilvaDepartment of Stomatology & Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, 1a Avenida, S/N, esq. praça universitária, setor Universitário, Goiânia, Goiás, 74605-220, Brazil. mariaagsilva@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4130-293X

Funding

Quantification of 3D Bony Changes in Temporomandibular Joint OsteoarthritisR01DE024450 · NIDCR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Lucia H Cevidanes · 2013 to 2026
$5.5M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE024450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to describe and compare CBCT imaging prescription in clinical practice among orthodontists from five countries in Europe and America. Additionally, it investigated factors associated with the prescribing and the use of guidelines for CBCT imaging. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out using an online questionnaire sent to all registered orthodontists in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Romania, and the United States of America (USA). The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and Poisson regression.

resultsThe final sample consisted of 1284 participants. CBCT was prescribed by 84.4% of the participants for selected cases (84.9%), mainly for impacted teeth (92.4%), presurgical planning (54.1%), and root resorption (51.9%). High cost was most frequently the limiting factor for CBCT prescription (55.4%). Only 45.2% of those who were using CBCT imaging reported adhering to guidelines. CBCT imaging prescription was associated with the orthodontists' countries (p < .009, except for Belgium, p = .068), while the use of guidelines was associated with the respondents' country and additional training on CBCT imaging (p < .001).

conclusionsOrthodontists refer patients for CBCT for selected indications (impacted teeth, root resorption, presurgical planning, dentofacial deformities, as suggested by the international guidelines, and also for upper airway and temporomandibular joint evaluation). Many do not adhere to specific guidelines. There are substantial variations between the countries about the orthodontists' referral for CBCT and guideline usage, irrespective of gender. CBCT prescription may be limited by financial barriers, adhering to specific guidelines and prior CBCT training. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CBCT prescription among orthodontists must be based on prescription criteria and current guidelines. It is advised to improve CBCT education and training to enhance CBCT selection, referral, analysis, and interpretation in orthodontic practice.

Indexed as

OrthodonticsTooth, ImpactedCone-Beam Computed TomographyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansOrthodontistsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesCBCTCone-beam computed tomographyDiagnosisOrthodonticsSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34424401
PMCPMC8817060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.