ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Radiographic imaging in relation to the mandibular third molar: a survey among oral surgeons in Sweden.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The agreement of panoramic radiography with cone-beam computed tomography in classifying impacted lower third molars: a systematic review.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Demographic and Radiographic Characteristics Associated with the Occurrence of Impacted Third Molars in Indonesian Patients: A Retrospective Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Mandibular Third Molar Impaction and Bone Change Distal to the Second Molar: A Panoramic Radiographic Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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
objectivesTo query the experience of oral surgeons concerning referral routines and preferences for radiographic imaging modality before surgical removal of mandibular third molars and investigate factors that influence imaging modality preferences. MATERIALS AND
methodsMembers of the Swedish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (n = 280) were invited to participate in a web-based digital survey concerning their experiences and use of three imaging modalities in pre-surgical assessment of mandibular third molar removal. The survey comprised multiple-choice questions and four cases depicted in images; respondents reported whether they would supplement the cases with other images and, if so, from which modality.
resultsThe response rate was 64%. Panoramic radiographs were most commonly used in pre-surgical planning (response options: always or often), significant difference between professions (p = 0.039), and considered to facilitate treatment planning (87%), as was CBCT (82%); for 51%, CBCT reduced post-operative complications. Preferred modality for localizing the mandibular canal was fairly evenly distributed and for non-complex case, significant difference between subgroups of OMFS surgeons was found (p = 0.003) as to preference for intraoral radiographs.
conclusionsA majority of respondents received a report within 2 weeks of their referral for CBCT and would read the report and view the images before surgery. Image modality preference differed depending on case complexity, with a greater perceived need for CBCT. Profession and practical experience affected choice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Choice of imaging modality in mandibular third molar assessment is also important from dose delivery and social economy standpoints.
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.