ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Are imaging exams relevant in aiding the diagnosis of focal osteoporotic bone marrow defect: A systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Focal osteoporotic bone marrow defect (FOBMD) is a rare and poorly documented pathology corresponding to an unusual hematopoietic tissue in maxillary bones. Several studies have investigated FOBMD but reported different and heterogenous approaches to a correct diagnosis. Therefore, this systematic review evaluated the relevance of imaging exams in aiding FOBMD diagnosis and the implications in surgical planning for dental implants.The research question was: What is the relevance of imaging tests in aiding FOBMD diagnosis? Methods: Online databases were searched to select articles based on eligibility criteria. The studies included in the systematic review were submitted to bias and applicability assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for study quality assessment. Results: A total of 383 articles were obtained from all the databases, 27 studies were included, and all performed biopsies to confirm the diagnosis. The selected studies evaluated 698 patients, including approximately 80% of women, corroborating the literature that notes a higher prevalence of this lesion in women. The reviewed articles showed a low risk of bias for case series, moderate for case reports, and low for cross-sectional studies. Conclusion: The studies considered in this systematic review have shown that radiographic characteristics may sufficiently identify the lesion and provide a periodic radiographic follow-up. However, it is worth noting the need for CBCT for planning oral rehabilitation through implants to minimize the risks of such complications.
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.