Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34520245›Full record

SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2022

Comparison of CBCT and panoramic radiography for the assessment of bone loss and root resorption on the second molar associated with third molar impaction: a systematic review.

Larissa Moreira-Souza, Luciana Butini Oliveira, Hugo Gaêta-Araujo, Marcia Almeida-Marques, Luciana Asprino, Anne Caroline Oenning

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Larissa Moreira-SouzaDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6722-3183
Luciana Butini OliveiraDivision of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, Brazil.
Hugo Gaêta-AraujoDivision of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Alfenas (UNIFAL-MG), Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Marcia Almeida-MarquesDivision of Oral Radiology, Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Instituto de Pesquisas São Leopoldo Mandic, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luciana AsprinoDepartment of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Anne Caroline OenningDivision of Oral Radiology, Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Instituto de Pesquisas São Leopoldo Mandic, São Paulo, Brazil.
Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Federal de Alfenas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate whether the use of cone beam CT (CBCT) changes the diagnosis of external root resorption (ERR) or marginal bone loss (MBL) involving a second molar adjacent to an impacted third molar.

methodsA systematic search was applied in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest. Studies assessing the detection of ERR or MBL in a second molar adjacent to an impacted third molar through CBCT and panoramic radiography (PAN) were included. Prevalence and agreement between PAN and CBCT on the detection of ERR and MBL were collected. The risk of bias was assessed using the MAStARI.

resultsA total of 593 papers were identified, and after a 2-phase selection, 5 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Regarding ERR, its prevalence in PAN was reported from 5.31 to 19.5% and from 22.8 to 62.0% in CBCT. The percentage of agreement varied from 28.5 to 74.0%. The prevalence of MBL varied from 21.9 to 62.9% in PAN, while those values varied from 21.6 to 80% in CBCT images. The percentage of agreement between PAN and CBCT for the detection of MBL ranged from 66.0 to 85.0%. Four studies presented low risk of bias and one had moderate risk.

conclusionsMore ERR and MBL are assessed in CBCT compared to PAN. There is a considerable agreement between PAN and CBCT assessment of ERR and MBL, however, mostly related to the absence of the pathology rather its presence.

Indexed as

Root ResorptionSpiral Cone-Beam Computed TomographyTooth, ImpactedCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansMolarMolar, ThirdRadiography, Panoramicalveolar bone losscone beam CTradiography, panoramicroot resorptionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34520245
PMCPMC8925877
OpenAlexW3199515890

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.