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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kapetanović, Aldin, Oosterkamp, Barbara C. M., Lamberts, Antoon A., Schols, Jan G. J. H.
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