Hugo Gaêta-Araujo1,2, André Ferreira Leite1,3, Karla de Faria Vasconcelos1, Reinhilde Jacobs1,4. 1. OMFS IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Oral Diagnosis, Division of Oral Radiology, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, 13414-903, Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. 4. Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article aims to appraise how scientific evidence related to CBCT has changed over the years, based on levels of evidence and diagnostic efficacy. METHODS: A general search strategy was used in different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science) to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on CBCT until November of 2020. The SRs included were divided according to different specialties of dentistry. A critical review of the articles was made, describing the level of evidence and efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 75 articles were selected. There was an increase in the number of SRs on CBCT from 2014 onwards, as 83% of the SRs on this topic were published after 2013, and 72% between 2016 and to date. Twenty SRs (27%) performed meta-analysis. Only 28% of the SRs provided a detailed description of CBCT protocols. According to SR evidence, almost all specialties of dentistry have advanced concomitantly with the introduction of CBCT. The majority of SRs were related to clinical applications (level 2 of efficacy), followed by technical parameters (level 1 of efficacy). Only some CBCT models were mentioned in the SRs selected. CONCLUSION: Over the course of 20 years, SRs related to CBCT applications for a broad range of dental specialties have been published, with the vast majority of studies at levels 1 and 2 of diagnostic efficacy. Not all CBCT models available on the market have been scientifically validated. At all times, one should remain cautious as such not to simply extrapolate in vitro results to the clinical setting. Also, considering the wide variety of CBCT devices and protocols, reported results should not be overstated or generalized, as outcomes often refer to specific CBCT devices and protocols.
OBJECTIVE: This article aims to appraise how scientific evidence related to CBCT has changed over the years, based on levels of evidence and diagnostic efficacy. METHODS: A general search strategy was used in different databases (Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science) to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on CBCT until November of 2020. The SRs included were divided according to different specialties of dentistry. A critical review of the articles was made, describing the level of evidence and efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 75 articles were selected. There was an increase in the number of SRs on CBCT from 2014 onwards, as 83% of the SRs on this topic were published after 2013, and 72% between 2016 and to date. Twenty SRs (27%) performed meta-analysis. Only 28% of the SRs provided a detailed description of CBCT protocols. According to SR evidence, almost all specialties of dentistry have advanced concomitantly with the introduction of CBCT. The majority of SRs were related to clinical applications (level 2 of efficacy), followed by technical parameters (level 1 of efficacy). Only some CBCT models were mentioned in the SRs selected. CONCLUSION: Over the course of 20 years, SRs related to CBCT applications for a broad range of dental specialties have been published, with the vast majority of studies at levels 1 and 2 of diagnostic efficacy. Not all CBCT models available on the market have been scientifically validated. At all times, one should remain cautious as such not to simply extrapolate in vitro results to the clinical setting. Also, considering the wide variety of CBCT devices and protocols, reported results should not be overstated or generalized, as outcomes often refer to specific CBCT devices and protocols.