ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2024
The agreement of panoramic radiography with cone-beam computed tomography in classifying impacted lower third molars: a systematic review.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of cone-beam computed tomography to the evaluation of lesions resulting from multiple myeloma and to the early diagnosis of the disease: A scoping review.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Review
- Assessment of marginal bone loss, distal caries, and external root resorption in second molars adjacent to impacted third molars: a retrospective CBCT and panoramic study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aimed to determine whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) yield consistent results in determining the degree of impacted lower third molar teeth based on existing classification parameters.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PLOS One, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additionally, a manual search was also carried out. There were no restrictions on publication dates, allowing a broader scope of literature. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, all studies that compared the outcomes of CBCT and panoramic images concerning the position of impacted teeth, according to the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications, were included.
resultsFour studies met the inclusion criteria. One study used the Pell & Gregory classification to assess differences, finding a significant result (P< 0.001). Two studies used both the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications. In these assessments, one study found no significant differences in the Winter classification (p= 1.000) or the Pell & Gregory assessment (p= 0.500). However, another study identified significant differences using both the winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications (P< 0.001). One study conducted an assessment using only Winter classification and found no significant differences between PR and CBCT (P> 0.05).
conclusionThere are inter-modality differences in the agreement concerning the degree of impaction of the third molar when using CBCT compared with panoramic imaging across various classification levels. Improved assessment methods are necessary to determine the most appropriate imaging modality for therapeutic management.
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.