ArticleBMC oral health2025
USG and CBCT indications in pediatric to adult dental patients: a university hospital study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to retrospectively analyze the indications for requesting ultrasonography (USG) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients presenting to the Faculty of Dentistry.
methodsA total of 54 USG requests were retrospectively reviewed for age, sex, region examined, type of probe used, and whether Doppler USG was applied. Additionally, 5044 CBCT requests were analyzed according to age, sex, region of interest (ROI), field of view (FOV) size, and re-exposure rates, in line with DIMITRA and SEDENTEXCT guidelines. Indications not covered by DIMITRA were categorized as "other." Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical variables, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsIn the USG group, there were 28 male and 26 female patients. The mean age was 49.32 ± 15.29 years for males and 37.65 ± 14.47 years for females. The most common USG indications were soft tissue calcifications, lymph node evaluations, and soft tissue swellings. In the CBCT group, 507 patients (10.05%) were aged ≤ 18 years, and 4537 (89.95%) were older than 18 years. The overall mean age was 45.13 ± 16.83 years (range: 8-91). Of all patients, 2385 (47.28%) were male and 2659 (52.72%) were female. The most common CBCT indication was categorized as "other" (78.2%), followed by bone pathology (11.7%) and impacted teeth (7.6%). Implant planning was the leading reason within the "other" category (n = 3373, 85.5%).
conclusionCBCT was more frequently utilized than USG across all age groups. To reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, adherence to optimized CBCT guidelines is essential. Moreover, broader implementation of USG should be encouraged in suitable cases.
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.