Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline

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.

Automated summary

This study aimed to develop a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology, based on a systematic review of articles to address main clinical questions. The conclusions highlighted a considerable lack of scientific evidence in this area, recommending more research of higher quality for future updates.