Cargando…
Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline
OBJECTIVES: Radiographs are considered essential in orthodontics. However, their diagnostic value and indications for use are still uncertain, while exposure to radiation carries health risks. This study aimed to report on the development of a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology. ME...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Milan
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32462471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01219-6 |
_version_ | 1783648843555930112 |
---|---|
author | Kapetanović, Aldin Oosterkamp, Barbara C. M. Lamberts, Antoon A. Schols, Jan G. J. H. |
author_facet | Kapetanović, Aldin Oosterkamp, Barbara C. M. Lamberts, Antoon A. Schols, Jan G. J. H. |
author_sort | Kapetanović, Aldin |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Radiographs are considered essential in orthodontics. However, their diagnostic value and indications for use are still uncertain, while exposure to radiation carries health risks. This study aimed to report on the development of a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology. METHODS: A Guideline Development Taskforce was set up. The GRADE methodology was used for development and the RIGHT Statement for reporting of the guideline. We systematically reviewed articles to address the main clinical question: how different types of radiographs contribute to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and post-treatment outcome evaluation. After a literature search and data extraction, we formulated conclusions and assessed the strength of the evidence according to the GRADE method. Both literature conclusions and the most important considerations, such as patient preferences, organizational matters and expert opinions were taken into account to finally issue recommendations. RESULTS: 7 clinical questions focused on orthopantomograms, lateral cephalograms, hand-wrist radiographs, peri-apical radiographs, bitewings, antero-occlusal radiographs, and cone-beam computer tomographic imaging. The literature search lead to 484 unique studies, of which 17 were included in the analysis. The strength of evidence of the conclusions was graded low or very low. We formulated considerations and took them into account when issuing the 13 clinical recommendations to address the clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable lack of scientific evidence on this topic. Nonetheless, this guideline provides clinicians with a tool for decision-making regarding radiographic records while enhancing patient radiation protection. More research of higher quality is recommended for a future update. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11547-020-01219-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7870627 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Milan |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78706272021-02-16 Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline Kapetanović, Aldin Oosterkamp, Barbara C. M. Lamberts, Antoon A. Schols, Jan G. J. H. Radiol Med Head, Neck and Dental Radiology OBJECTIVES: Radiographs are considered essential in orthodontics. However, their diagnostic value and indications for use are still uncertain, while exposure to radiation carries health risks. This study aimed to report on the development of a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology. METHODS: A Guideline Development Taskforce was set up. The GRADE methodology was used for development and the RIGHT Statement for reporting of the guideline. We systematically reviewed articles to address the main clinical question: how different types of radiographs contribute to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and post-treatment outcome evaluation. After a literature search and data extraction, we formulated conclusions and assessed the strength of the evidence according to the GRADE method. Both literature conclusions and the most important considerations, such as patient preferences, organizational matters and expert opinions were taken into account to finally issue recommendations. RESULTS: 7 clinical questions focused on orthopantomograms, lateral cephalograms, hand-wrist radiographs, peri-apical radiographs, bitewings, antero-occlusal radiographs, and cone-beam computer tomographic imaging. The literature search lead to 484 unique studies, of which 17 were included in the analysis. The strength of evidence of the conclusions was graded low or very low. We formulated considerations and took them into account when issuing the 13 clinical recommendations to address the clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: There was a considerable lack of scientific evidence on this topic. Nonetheless, this guideline provides clinicians with a tool for decision-making regarding radiographic records while enhancing patient radiation protection. More research of higher quality is recommended for a future update. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11547-020-01219-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Milan 2020-05-27 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7870627/ /pubmed/32462471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01219-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Head, Neck and Dental Radiology Kapetanović, Aldin Oosterkamp, Barbara C. M. Lamberts, Antoon A. Schols, Jan G. J. H. Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title | Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title_full | Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title_fullStr | Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title_full_unstemmed | Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title_short | Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
title_sort | orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline |
topic | Head, Neck and Dental Radiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32462471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01219-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kapetanovicaldin orthodonticradiologydevelopmentofaclinicalpracticeguideline AT oosterkampbarbaracm orthodonticradiologydevelopmentofaclinicalpracticeguideline AT lambertsantoona orthodonticradiologydevelopmentofaclinicalpracticeguideline AT scholsjangjh orthodonticradiologydevelopmentofaclinicalpracticeguideline |