Journal of periodontology · 2017
American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Consensus Statement on Selected Oral Applications for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.
СтатьяОбзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mandelaris George A, Scheyer E Todd, Evans Marianna, Kim David, McAllister Bradley, Nevins Marc L, Rios Hector F, Sarment David
Аннотация
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.
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.