Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38389599›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

The Utility of Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans in Diagnosing and Treating Anterior Lesions of the Maxilla and Mandible.

Kavya Shankar Muttanahally, Samantha Sheppard, Sumit Yadav, Aditya Tadinada

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kavya Shankar MuttanahallyOral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Growth and Development, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Lincoln, USA.
Samantha SheppardDepartment of General Dentistry, University of Connecticut, Farmington, USA.
Sumit YadavDepartment of Growth and Development, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Lincoln, USA.
Aditya TadinadaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, USA.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · USUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe standard screening protocol for radiographic examination in dentistry as per the American Dental Association recommendations is a panoramic radiograph (PAN) and four horizontal bitewings. PAN inherently suffers from several shortcomings like the superimposition of anatomic structures, especially of the cervical spine that obscures a significant portion of the anterior maxilla and mandible. This region has a significant amount of pathology that is not adequately imaged. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging provides circumferential information on the area of interest and adds value to the diagnosis and treatment planning of pathology, especially in the anterior maxilla and mandible. However, there is not an adequate number of well-designed studies that articulate the true value addition of 3D imaging for the evaluation of this region.

objectivesThe objective of this study is to evaluate the value addition of 3D imaging in diagnosing pathologies in the anterior maxilla and mandible when compared to two-dimensional PAN. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 25 cases that had a diagnosis of anterior pathology and had both a PAN and a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan were collected for this study. An institutional review board approval to retrospectively evaluate these data was obtained. The PAN and CBCT scans were randomly evaluated by a second-year dental student, an oral and maxillofacial radiology resident in training, and a board-certified oral radiologist. The scans were evaluated using a three-point modified Likert scale, where 1 represents "not visible or clear," 2 represents "visible but not clear," and 3 represents "visible and clear." The lesions were evaluated for characteristics like lesion location, size & shape, internal contents, borders of the lesion, cortical integrity, locularity, and effect on adjacent structures like root resorption. After the evaluation was completed, a comparison of the lesion diagnosis was done with histopathology to confirm the diagnosis. The evaluators were also asked to comment on the specific feature that 3D imaging provided that added value to the case. Kappa analysis was done to evaluate inter-operator reliability.

resultsPAN demonstrated significantly lower efficacy in identifying and diagnosing lesions. Only 56% of cases were analyzed using PAN, with 44% deemed undetectable or poorly visualized. These challenging cases necessitated CBCT scans for accurate diagnosis, which successfully diagnosed all 25 cases. The p-value of 0.0002 for PAN implies a highly significant difference from histopathology, suggesting the distinctions are not due to chance. Conversely, the p-value of 0.3273 for CBCT implies that observed differences may be random, lacking sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. CBCT scans consistently outperformed PAN in visualizing various lesion characteristics, underscoring their superior diagnostic capabilities.

conclusionsIn this study, with a small sample size, 3D imaging provided a significant value addition to the diagnosis and treatment planning by providing additional information regarding the location, extent, internal content, and effect on adjacent structures. The practical implications for clinical settings, along with comparisons to current literature, underscore the study's distinctiveness.

Indexed as

anterior mandibleanterior maxillacone-beam computed tomography (cbct)digital panoramic radiographsperiapical lesions

Identifiers

PMID38389599
PMCPMC10883409
OpenAlexW4391134499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.