George A Mandelaris1,2, E Todd Scheyer3,4, Marianna Evans5,6, David Kim7, Bradley McAllister8,9, Marc L Nevins7,10, Hector F Rios11, David Sarment12,11. 1. Private practice, Oakbrook Terrace, Park Ridge, and Chicago, IL. 2. Department of Graduate Periodontics, University of Illinois College of Dentistry, Chicago, IL. 3. Private practice, Houston, TX. 4. University of Texas Dental School, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Orthodontics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Private practice, Newtown Square, PA. 7. Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Division of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. 8. Private practice, Tualatin and Beaverton, OR. 9. Department of Periodontology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 10. Private practice, Boston, MA. 11. Xoran Technologies, Ann Arbor, MI. 12. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) recently embarked on a Best Evidence Consensus (BEC) model of scientific inquiry to address questions of clinical importance in periodontology for which there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a definitive conclusion. This review addresses oral indications for use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: To develop the BEC, the AAP convened a panel of experts with knowledge of CBCT and substantial experience in applying CBCT to a broad range of clinical scenarios that involve critical structures in the oral cavity. The panel examined a clinical scenario or treatment decision that would likely benefit from additional evidence and interpretation of evidence, performed a systematic review on the individual, debated the merits of published data and experiential information, developed a consensus report, and provided a clinical bottom line based on the best evidence available. RESULTS: This BEC addressed the potential value and limitations of CBCT relative to specific applications in the management of patients requiring or being considered for the following clinical therapies: 1) placement of dental implants; 2) interdisciplinary dentofacial therapy involving orthodontic tooth movement in the management of malocclusion with associated risk on the supporting periodontal tissues (namely, dentoalveolar bone); and 3) management of periodontitis. CONCLUSION: For each specific question addressed, there is a critical mass of evidence, but insufficient evidence to support broad conclusions or definitive clinical practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) recently embarked on a Best Evidence Consensus (BEC) model of scientific inquiry to address questions of clinical importance in periodontology for which there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a definitive conclusion. This review addresses oral indications for use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: To develop the BEC, the AAP convened a panel of experts with knowledge of CBCT and substantial experience in applying CBCT to a broad range of clinical scenarios that involve critical structures in the oral cavity. The panel examined a clinical scenario or treatment decision that would likely benefit from additional evidence and interpretation of evidence, performed a systematic review on the individual, debated the merits of published data and experiential information, developed a consensus report, and provided a clinical bottom line based on the best evidence available. RESULTS: This BEC addressed the potential value and limitations of CBCT relative to specific applications in the management of patients requiring or being considered for the following clinical therapies: 1) placement of dental implants; 2) interdisciplinary dentofacial therapy involving orthodontic tooth movement in the management of malocclusion with associated risk on the supporting periodontal tissues (namely, dentoalveolar bone); and 3) management of periodontitis. CONCLUSION: For each specific question addressed, there is a critical mass of evidence, but insufficient evidence to support broad conclusions or definitive clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: Abdulaziz Mohammad Alsakr; Adriana G Creanga; Abdullah Saad Alqahtani; Khalid Gufran Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 3.246