SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Incidental findings from panoramic radiographs: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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.
- Incidental findings from panoramic radiographs: A systematic review with meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of radiographs is widely spread, both among general dentists and specialists, since it provides a view of the oral and perioral tissues using a relatively easy-to-acquire and low-dose image. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and summarize evidence from clinical studies on the prevalence of incidental findings from panoramic radiographs.
methodSystematic literature searches without restrictions were undertaken in eight databases from inception up to January 2026 for studies reporting on incidental findings from panoramic radiographs of any dental patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using a custom tool based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's tool for prevalence studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed, followed by subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses.
resultsTwenty-five studies covering a total of 66 882 patients (44.1% male; average age 28.9 years) were included. The prevalence of incidental findings ranged from 5.2% to 88.1%, with average distribution prevalences between 22.9% and 53.1%, but heterogeneity was high across studies. Incidental findings were most often related to airways (30.9%), followed by teeth (12.2%), soft-tissue calcifications (9.4%), spine (7.4%), radiopacities (7.1%), and temporomandibular joint (1.8%). However, several methodological issues were present in the included studies (incomplete reporting of patient- or radiography-related details, incomplete categorization and reporting of the severity of findings, small sample sizes, and issues with research transparency).
conclusionEvidence indicates that incidental findings are common in panoramic radiographs of dental patients. Although many incidental findings are clinically insignificant, some may have important implications. When a dental panoramic image is justified, it should be adequately assessed for incidental findings by either a specialist oral and maxillofacial radiologist or a dentist with appropriate training and experience.
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.