Agreement among orthodontists experienced with cone-beam computed tomography on the need for follow-up and the clinical impact of craniofacial findings from multiplanar and 3-dimensional reconstructed views.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to assess interrater and intrarater agreement among orthodontic clinicians in their assessments of reported incidental findings in regard to both the need for additional follow-up and the impact on future orthodontic treatment in large-field maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 18 nonrandomly selected large-field maxillofacial CBCT volumes containing a reported total of 88 radiographic findings. All scans were associated with formal radiologic reports. However, the suggestions of further follow-up were removed from the radiologic reports so as to not bias the 3 evaluating orthodontists in their subsequent decision making. The evaluators had on average 7.6 years of CBCT usage and self-interpretation experience. Reliability was determined by quantifying the level of agreement between the evaluators' assessments for both research questions for all 88 findings using a binary response (yes/no) as the outcome measure. The Cohen kappa statistic was calculated to quantify intrarater and interrater agreement globally for both statements. RESULTS: Although interrater agreement was considerable, potential decisions with clinical impact were not consistent. This needs to be considered when interpreting maxillofacial incidental findings. Evaluators demonstrated higher levels of agreement for dentoalveolar findings compared with all other extragnathic regions when assessing clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Among the evaluators who were considered experienced in CBCT, "fair-to-good" interrater agreement and "excellent" intrarater agreement were demonstrated in terms of the need for further follow-up and their potential impact on future orthodontic treatment.

Indices to assess malocclusions in patients with cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: Several indices are now available to assess the severity of the malocclusion in cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) patients; and although it has been quite some time since the introduction of these indices, there is no consensus as to which index should be used for CLP populations. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available literature on the indices used to assess the occlusal schemes in dental models of CLP patients, with respect to the most commonly used index and the index that most fulfils the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. SEARCH METHODS: Ten electronic databases, grey literature, and reference list searches were conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria consisted of studies that aimed to assess a particular malocclusion index on study models of patients with CLP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Full articles were retrieved from abstracts/titles that appeared to have met the inclusion -exclusion criteria which were subsequently reviewed using more detailed criteria for a final selection decision. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to appraise the methodological quality of the finally included studies. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, only a qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies met the inclusion -exclusion criteria. These studies revealed seven utilized indices, namely the GOSLON Yardstick, Five-Year-Old, Bauru-Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Yardstick, Huddart -Bodenham, Modified Huddart -Bodenham, EUROCRAN Yardstick, and GOAL Yardstick. The GOSLON Yardstick was the most commonly used index, and the Modified Huddart -Bodenham performed the best according to the WHO criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the Modified Huddart -Bodenham Index equalled or outperformed the rest of the indices on all the WHO criteria and that the GOSLON Yardstick was the most commonly used index, possibly due to a longer time in use. Therefore, the Modified Huddart -Bodenham could be considered as the standard to measure outcomes of patients with CLP.

The frequency and nature of incidental findings in large-field cone beam computed tomography scans of an orthodontic sample.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the nature and frequency of incidental findings in large-field maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: A total of 427 consecutive CBCT radiologic reports obtained for orthodontic purposes were retrospectively reviewed. Findings were summarized and categorized into six anatomic categories. RESULTS: A total of 842 incidental findings were reported in the 427 CBCT scans (1.97 findings/scan). The most prevalent findings were those located in the airway (42.3%), followed by the paranasal sinuses (30.9%), dentoalveolar (14.7%), surrounding hard/soft tissues (4.0%), temporomandibular joint (TMJ) (6.4%), and cervical vertebrae (1.3%) regions. Non-odontogenic findings, defined as those located outside the dentition and associated alveolus, represented 718 of the 842 (85.3%) findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the high occurrence of incidental findings in large-field maxillofacial CBCT scans in a sample of orthodontically referred cases. The majority are extragnathic findings, which can be normally considered outside the regions of interest of many dental clinicians. Specifically, incidental findings in the naso-oropharyngeal and paranasal air sinuses are the most frequent. This underscores the need for comprehensive review of the entire data volume and the requisite to properly document all findings, regardless of the region of interest.

The frequency and nature of incidental findings in cone-beam computed tomographic scans of the head and neck region: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The authors analyzed the literature critically to determine the frequency and nature of incidental findings (IFs) in cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans of the head and neck region. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic search of several electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library) through July 14, 2012, as well as a limited gray-literature search (in Google Scholar). Inclusion criteria encompassed the frequency of reports of IFs in the head and neck region in CBCT imaging, regardless of the sample origin. The authors used no search limitations. They evaluated methodological quality according to 15 criteria related to study design, population characteristics and statistical analysis. RESULTS: Initially, the authors identified 66 articles from the electronic database searches and another one via the gray-literature search. Once they applied the final selection criteria, they found that only five articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. In articles in which investigators reported the number of IFs as the absolute number of IFs detected, the frequency ranged from 1.3 to 2.9 IFs per CBCT scan. Conversely, in articles in which authors reported the number of IFs as the number of scans containing IFs, the frequency ranged from 24.6 to 93.4 percent of CBCT scans. Methodological quality averaged 77.2 percent (range, 60-93 percent) of the maximum possible score. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IFs are detected relatively frequently in CBCT imaging, and considerable variation is evident in their frequency and nature. The majority are extragnathic findings (that is, those found outside the region of the dentition and alveolus), thus emphasizing the need for complete and proper review of the entire image, regardless of field of view or region of interest.