ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2024
Clinical use of cone-beam computed tomography in Western Norway: a referral-based retrospective study.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Root anatomy and canal configuration of primary molars: a systemic review and meta-analysis.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo elucidate cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) referral profiles in Western Norway. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn all, 3,031 referrals to oral- and maxillofacial radiologist were reviewed. Patient data were retrieved retrospectively from electronic charts. The patient's age, gender, and perceived clinical indication were noted, as well as relevant medical and dental history and whether the referring clinician was a general dentist or held a clinical dental specialty.
resultsA total of 2,680 referrals fulfilled the inclusion criteria (UiB n = 1,471, and TkVestland, n = 1,209). The female:male ratio was 1,427:1,253. Mean age was 33 years - 35 years for females compared to 31 years for males (p < 0.001). The most common clinical indications were related to impacted teeth (29%), endodontic issues (17%), cleft lip palate (12%), and resorptions (10%). Less common were bone lesions, implant planning, trauma to the teeth or jaws, atypical orofacial pain, and temporo-mandibular joint (TMJ). The patient age-profiles mirrored differences in indications within the cohort. Most referrals were from specialist dentists such as orthodontists, oral surgeons, and endodontists. Interestingly, 543/2,680 (20%) referrals were from general dentists. Conclusions: Specialist dentists such as orthodontists, oral surgeons, and endodontists refer most patients for clinical indications such as impacted teeth, endodontic issues, and resorptions.
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.