4.5 Article

American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Consensus Statement on Selected Oral Applications for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 10, Pages 939-945

Publisher

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.170234

Keywords

Cone-beam computed tomography; consensus; dental implants; orthodontics; periodontal diseases; radiation exposure

Funding

  1. Carestream Dental (Atlanta, Georgia)
  2. Carestream Dental
  3. Materialise Dental
  4. ClaroNav
  5. Geistlich Pharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) recently embarked on a Best Evidence Consensus (BEC) model of scientific inquiry to address questions of clinical importance in periodontology for which there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a definitive conclusion. This review addresses oral indications for use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: To develop the BEC, the AAP convened a panel of experts with knowledge of CBCT and substantial experience in applying CBCT to a broad range of clinical scenarios that involve critical structures in the oral cavity. The panel examined a clinical scenario or treatment decision that would likely benefit from additional evidence and interpretation of evidence, performed a systematic review on the individual, debated the merits of published data and experiential information, developed a consensus report, and provided a clinical bottom line based on the best evidence available. Results: This BEC addressed the potential value and limitations of CBCT relative to specific applications in the management of patients requiring or being considered for the following clinical therapies: 1) placement of dental implants; 2) interdisciplinary dentofacial therapy involving orthodontic tooth movement in the management of malocclusion with associated risk on the supporting periodontal tissues (namely, dentoalveolar bone); and 3) management of periodontitis. Conclusion: For each specific question addressed, there is a critical mass of evidence, but insufficient evidence to support broad conclusions or definitive clinical practice guidelines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available