ArticleOral radiology2024
Incidental findings in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans for implant treatment planning: a retrospective study of 404 CBCT scans.
Article in Oral radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Prevalence and anatomical distribution of incidental and actionable findings on CBCT scans for implant planning.PloS one · 2026Observational
- A Retrospective Study of the Prevalence of Maxillary Sinus Cysts Incidentally Detected on MRI Among Non-Symptomatic Caucasian Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the prevalence of incidental findings and need for further dental treatment and analyse the influence of size of field-of-view (FOV) and age in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for pre-implant planning.
methods404 CBCT scans were examined retrospectively for incidental findings and need for further dental treatment. Incidental finding-frequencies and need for further treatment were assessed for different age (< 40 years, 40-60 years, > 60 years) and FOV groups (small, medium, large). Intraexaminer and interexaminer agreements were evaluated.
resultsIn 82% of the scans at least one incidental finding was found, with a total of 766 overall. More incidental findings were found in scans with large FOV (98% vs. 72%, OR = 22.39 large vs. small FOV, p < 0.0001) and in scans of patients > 60 years (OR = 5.37 patient's age > 60 years vs. < 40 years, p = 0.0003). Further dental treatment due to incidental findings was needed in 31%. Scans with large FOV were more likely to entail further treatment (OR = 3.55 large vs. small FOV, p < 0.0001). Partial edentulism and large FOV were identified as risk factors for further treatment (p = 0.0003 and p < 0.0001). Further referral of the patient based on incidental findings was judged as indicated in 5%. Intra- and inter-examiner agreements were excellent (kappa = 0.944/0.805).
conclusionsA considerable number of incidental findings with need for further dental treatment was found in partially edentulous patients and in patients > 60 years. In pre-implant planning of elderly patients, the selection of large FOV CBCT scans, including dentoalveolar regions not X-rayed recently, help to detect therapeutically relevant incidental findings.
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.