AIM: To identify standards, how entities of dental status are assessed and reported from full-arch radiographs of adults. METHODS: A Pub Med(Medline) search was performed in November 2011. Literature had to report at ...AIM: To identify standards, how entities of dental status are assessed and reported from full-arch radiographs of adults. METHODS: A Pub Med(Medline) search was performed in November 2011. Literature had to report at least one out of four defined entities using radiographs:number of teeth or implants; caries, fillings or restorations; root-canal fillings and apical health; alveolar bone level. Cohorts included to the study had to be of adult age. Methods of radiographic assessment were noted and checked for the later mode of report in text, tables or diagrams. For comparability, the encountered modeof report was operationalized to a logical expression.RESULTS: Thirty-seven out of 199 articles were evaluated via full-text review. Only one article reported all four entities. Eight articles reported at the maximum 3 comparable entities. However, comparability is impeded because of the usage of absolute or relative frequency, mean or median values as well as grouping. Furthermore the methods of assessment were different or not described sufficiently. Consequently, established sum scores turned out to be highly questionable, too. The amount of missing data within all studies remained unclear. It is even so remissed to mention supernumerary and aplased teeth as well as the count of third molars.CONCLUSION: Data about dental findings from radiographs is, if at all possible, only comparable with serious limitations. A standardization of both, assessing and reporting entities of dental status from radiographs is missing and has to be established within a report guideline.展开更多
基金Supported by The"Walter and Anna Koerner-Scholarship"as part of the Land of Baden-Wurttemberg’s Dentists Chamber(Stuttgart,Germany)within the cooperation of Tuebingen University and Peking University Dental Schoolsby Mrs.Barbara Welder of Dental Clinics Library at Eberhard-Karls-University(Tuebingen,Germany)by Lucas M Leister for English proofreading
文摘AIM: To identify standards, how entities of dental status are assessed and reported from full-arch radiographs of adults. METHODS: A Pub Med(Medline) search was performed in November 2011. Literature had to report at least one out of four defined entities using radiographs:number of teeth or implants; caries, fillings or restorations; root-canal fillings and apical health; alveolar bone level. Cohorts included to the study had to be of adult age. Methods of radiographic assessment were noted and checked for the later mode of report in text, tables or diagrams. For comparability, the encountered modeof report was operationalized to a logical expression.RESULTS: Thirty-seven out of 199 articles were evaluated via full-text review. Only one article reported all four entities. Eight articles reported at the maximum 3 comparable entities. However, comparability is impeded because of the usage of absolute or relative frequency, mean or median values as well as grouping. Furthermore the methods of assessment were different or not described sufficiently. Consequently, established sum scores turned out to be highly questionable, too. The amount of missing data within all studies remained unclear. It is even so remissed to mention supernumerary and aplased teeth as well as the count of third molars.CONCLUSION: Data about dental findings from radiographs is, if at all possible, only comparable with serious limitations. A standardization of both, assessing and reporting entities of dental status from radiographs is missing and has to be established within a report guideline.
