Aldin Kapetanović1, Barbara C M Oosterkamp2, Antoon A Lamberts3, Jan G J H Schols2. 1. Department of Dentistry - Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. orthodontie@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Dentistry - Orthodontics and Craniofacial Biology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Knowledge Institute of the Federation of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-05-17
Authors: Yaolong Chen; Kehu Yang; Ana Marušic; Amir Qaseem; Joerg J Meerpohl; Signe Flottorp; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann; Edwin S Y Chan; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Faruque Ahmed; Sarah Barber; Chiehfeng Chen; Mingming Zhang; Bin Xu; Jinhui Tian; Fujian Song; Hongcai Shang; Kun Tang; Qi Wang; Susan L Norris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: R H van Bunningen; P U Dijkstra; A Dieters; W J van der Meer; A M Kuijpers-Jagtman; Y Ren Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 3.573