Program including abstracts as pdf available here
Program including abstracts as pdf available here
Program including abstracts as pdf available here
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
OP 81<br />
Title<br />
SySTEMATIC REVIEWS ON INTRAORAL DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHy IN ENDODONTIC<br />
TREATMENT<br />
Authors<br />
M. ROHLIN 1 , M. KONISHI 2 , C. LINDH 1 , M. NILSSON 1 , K. TANIMOTO 2<br />
aBSTracTS OP 8<br />
Affiliations<br />
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Odontology,Malmö University,<br />
Malmö, SWEDEN, 2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Graduate School of Biomedical<br />
Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JAPAN<br />
Body<br />
Objectives: To review the literature on intraoral digital radiography in endodontic treatment<br />
concerning (i) how technical parameters for image acquisition and interpretation are reported,<br />
(ii) diagnostic efficacy <strong>as</strong> compared to film radiography.<br />
Methods: Two electronic datab<strong>as</strong>es were searched. Abstracts were selected according to preestablished<br />
criteria. In the first review, data were extracted using a model of image acquisition<br />
and interpretation. In the second review, data were interpreted and study quality of each<br />
study <strong>as</strong>sessed <strong>as</strong> high, moderate or low. Evidence w<strong>as</strong> rated according to GRADE in one quality<br />
level – high, moderate, low or very low.<br />
Results: The literature search yielded 295 bstracts; 82 publications were read in full-text and<br />
61 included. Most studies reported important technical parameters for image acquisition, but<br />
not for image interpretation. Only about half of the studies described resolution of the display<br />
system and less than half the graphic card. For diagnostic efficacy, t<strong>here</strong> w<strong>as</strong> no study of high<br />
quality and few studies of moderate quality. According to the results of these studies, t<strong>here</strong><br />
is no difference between digital and film radiography in the detectability of periapical lesions<br />
and root resorptions or in me<strong>as</strong>uring root canal length or working length with root canal files.<br />
Conclusions: The methodological quality of future publications must be improved to permit<br />
comparison of results between studies of intraoral digital radiography. As evidence-quality on<br />
diagnostic efficacy is low, further research is likely to have an impact on our confidence in the<br />
estimates of diagnostic efficacy.<br />
Keywords<br />
Endodontics, Radiography, Dental, Digital, Review, systematic<br />
77
Change language