K Tsiklakis1, A Mitsea2, A Tsichlaki3, N Pandis4. 1. Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str., Goudi, 11527, Athens, Greece. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str., Goudi, 11527, Athens, Greece. amitsea@dent.uoa.gr. 3. Centre for Oral Bioengineering, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Turner Street, London, E1 1BB, UK. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence of the diagnostic efficacy of panoramic radiographs (PRs) in the following six clinical situations: caries, acute dental infections, dental trauma, dental anomalies, Developmental disorders and pathological conditions in children. The research question posed by the EAPD was: "In which clinical situations and age groups is it indicated/contra-indicated to prescribe PRs in relation to these six clinical situations, in children". METHODS: An electronic search of the following databases was conducted: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Health Technology Assessment (HTA), to identify relevant studies published from 1990 to 2018. The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment of included studies was carried out independently and in duplicate using the QUADAS 2 tool. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3420 potentially relevant studies, and following screening 175 full texts were obtained, of which 16 were finally included in the review. Meta-analysis was not possible for any of the aforementioned clinical situations, therefore the included studies were tabulated in terms of qualitative descriptive hierarchy of evidence for diagnostic. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available evidence there is a need for high quality diagnostic accuracy efficacy studies to address important diagnostic tasks in these six clinical situations in children, as there is a lack of scientific evidence concerning PRs in children, as there would support the production of guidelines for prescribing PRs in children along with their relative indications and contra-indications.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence of the diagnostic efficacy of panoramic radiographs (PRs) in the following six clinical situations: caries, acute dental infections, dental trauma, dental anomalies, Developmental disorders and pathological conditions in children. The research question posed by the EAPD was: "In which clinical situations and age groups is it indicated/contra-indicated to prescribe PRs in relation to these six clinical situations, in children". METHODS: An electronic search of the following databases was conducted: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Health Technology Assessment (HTA), to identify relevant studies published from 1990 to 2018. The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment of included studies was carried out independently and in duplicate using the QUADAS 2 tool. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3420 potentially relevant studies, and following screening 175 full texts were obtained, of which 16 were finally included in the review. Meta-analysis was not possible for any of the aforementioned clinical situations, therefore the included studies were tabulated in terms of qualitative descriptive hierarchy of evidence for diagnostic. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available evidence there is a need for high quality diagnostic accuracy efficacy studies to address important diagnostic tasks in these six clinical situations in children, as there is a lack of scientific evidence concerning PRs in children, as there would support the production of guidelines for prescribing PRs in children along with their relative indications and contra-indications.