Pilot study - strategy for electronic
searches
Contents
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
2
Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 1
3
Results .................................................................................................................. 3
3.1
3.1.1
PubMed ................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2
Embase ................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Introduction of controlled vocabulary ............................................................ 10
3.2.1
PubMed/Medline.................................................................................... 10
3.2.2
Embase ................................................................................................. 13
3.3
4
Free text terms ............................................................................................... 3
CENTRAL..................................................................................................... 16
Conclusion and discussion .................................................................................. 17
4.1
Medline ......................................................................................................... 17
4.2
Embase ........................................................................................................ 18
4.3
CENTRAL..................................................................................................... 18
5
Grey Literature pilot searches .............................................................................. 20
6
References .......................................................................................................... 37
1
Introduction
The aim of this pilot study was to find the most appropriate balance between sensitivity
and specificity of the electronic searches keeping the results down to a reasonable
number in order to make efficient use of resources.
2
Materials and methods
A preliminary rapid scoping exercise was carried out. Studies were identified by a
cursory electronic search of PubMed/Medline and by searching the reference sections
of the identified studies. Thirteen were found for consideration. An assessment
against the stated inclusion criteria was made based on titles and abstracts. Not all of
the rapid scope papers met the criteria. The thirteen papers were assessed as follows:
Those meeting the inclusion criteria
Diniz 2008 [1]
Fortin 2011 [2]
Frei 2004 [3]
Reddy 1994 [4]
Schropp 2001 [5]
Schropp 2011 [6]
Those not meeting the inclusion criteria
Chen 2008 [7]
Dreiseidler 2009 [8]
Jacobs 1999 – 1 [9]
Jacobs 1999 – 2 [10]
Schropp 2009 [11]
Vazquez 2008 [12]
Webber 1999 [13]
1
These studies were used to pilot and refine the search strategy by conducting trial
searches as described by Torgerson [14]. The aim was to return all of those meeting
the inclusion criteria and exclude at least some of those that did not. The intention was
to include search terms only when there was a logical justification and to use broad
rather than specific terms to avoid the introduction of bias.
The pilot study was undertaken in two parts. First, free text terms alone were piloted to
find the best balance of specificity and sensitivity. Secondly, a specialist librarian was
consulted and the exercise was repeated following the introduction of controlled
vocabulary. In the case of the Medline database searches, the controlled vocabulary
consisted of MeSHi headings. In the case of the Embase database, these were
EMTREEii headings.
i
MeSH – Medical Subject Headings. Controlled vocabulary and thesaurus of the US National
Library of Medicine.
ii
EMTREE - Controlled vocabulary and thesaurus of Elsevier Life Science.
2
3
Results
3.1
3.1.1
Free text terms
PubMed
The first search used the PubMed Medline database and free text terms arising from
the review questions. The search terms were then refined in response to the results.
Seven trial searches were carried out as set out in Table 1. The results are presented
in Table 2.
PubMed v1
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry) AND (Radiograph* OR Radiolog* OR
Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR evaluation OR efficacy OR impact OR
diagnostic thinking OR therapeutic efficacy OR patient outcome OR comparison OR
comparative)
PubMed v2
PubMed v1– v large with poor specificity - try:
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry) AND (Radiograph* OR Radiolog* OR
Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment)
PubMed v3
Not finding Fortin – try including “oral implant”
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry OR oral implant*) AND (Radiograph* OR
Radiolog* OR Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment)
PubMed v4
As v3 plus date limiting
From 1992 – no closer because we would lose Reddy
PubMed v5
Try to make more specific by including “compar*” to try and identify comparative
studies
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry OR oral implant*) AND (Radiograph* OR
Radiolog* OR Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment) AND compar*
PubMed v6
Good result but now misses Diniz 2008. Include the word “chang*” to include studies
that use the word “change” or “changes” rather than “compare” when describing their
study.
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry OR oral implant*) AND (Radiograph* OR
Radiolog* OR Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment) AND (compar*
OR chang*)
PubMed v7
Same as v6 but without the date limitation
Table 1 - Trial searches of free text terms in PubMed/Medline
3
Search
strategy
Number of
results
returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
PubMed
v1
PubMed
v2
PubMed
v3
PubMed
v4
PubMed
v5
PubMed
v6
PubMed
v7
3338
1287
1297
1221
382
450
464

ᵡ





ᵡ
















ᵡ






























ᵡ






ᵡ






ᵡ





ᵡ
ᵡ





ᵡ
ᵡ





ᵡ
ᵡ
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 2 - Results of trial searches of free text terms in PubMed/Medline
4
3.1.2
Embase
In response to the results of the PubMed/Medline pilot, Selected PubMed/Medline
searches were selected to use in the Embase Database. The search terms used the
Embase field code “.mp” which is multipurpose” and includes key words, title, abstract,
text word and subject heading. The search terms are presented in Table 3 and the
results are presented in Table 4. The question was raised of whether the rapid scope
studies, which had largely been identified using PubMed/Medline, actually existed in
the Embase database. Therefore, specific searches were made in Embase, using titles
and authors’ names, to find if the studies were listed. It was found that only one of the
rapid scope studies was absent from the Embase database. The results of this enquiry
are also presented in Table 4.
Embase v1
Embase Classic+Embase 1947 to 2012 August 10 search based on PubMed v1
See Appendix A for details of search
Embase v2
New Embase search based on criteria in more successful PubMed v3 search
See Appendix B for details of search.
Embase v3
Exactly the same as the PubMed v7 search
Table 3 - Trial searches of free text terms in Embase
5
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Embase
v1
Embase
v2
Embase
v3
Exists in
Embase
database
1273
715
303

ᵡ


ᵡ
ᵡ

ᵡ


ᵡ
ᵡ

ᵡ


ᵡ
ᵡ
Yes
No


ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ

ᵡ


ᵡ

ᵡ

ᵡ


ᵡ

ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 4 - Results of initial trial searches of free text terms in Embase
It was noted that some of the studies did not contain the word dental or oral when
referring to dental implants. For example, Schropp [6], writing in the journal Clinical
Oral Implants Research, does not mention “dental implant”, “implant dentistry” or “oral
implant” in the title or abstract. It simply refers to “implant”. Therefore, in an attempt to
identify such papers, the search terms were adjusted to include those studies by using
the terms “Dentistry” AND “Implant*”. This was unsuccessful. The result was that only
49 studies were identified compared to 303 in the previous search. None of the “rapid
scope” studies were identified. (Table 5)
6
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Embase
v4
Exists in
Embase
database
49
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
Yes
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 5 - Trial search of free text terms in Embase v4
It was considered, at this stage, if a whole new search strategy might be required in
order to return the rapid scope studies in Embase. A list of published key words was
therefore extracted from each of the rapid scope studies. This is given in Appendix E.
A search strategy was based on these key words and is presented in Table 6 and
Appendix C. The results are presented in Table 7.
7
Terms required to find dental implant studies.
Implant*
AND
Dental OR
Dentistry OR
Oral OR
Endosseous OR
Oral in Journal title
AND Terms required to find radiology studies
Radiolog* OR
Radiograph* OR
Tomograph$ OR
Imag*
AND Terms to find studies that investigate planning or assessment of cases
Plan* OR
Assess* OR
Placement OR
Select* OR
Predict*
AND Terms to find comparative studies
Compar* OR
Chang* OR
Versus OR
Necess* OR
Impact
Table 6 - Embase search of free text terms based on key words extracted from rapid scope studies
8
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Embase
v5
Exists in
Embase
database
1546

ᵡ


ᵡ
ᵡ
Yes
No




ᵡ


Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 7 – Results of trial search of free text terms
Embase v5 based on keywords from rapid scope studies
This search did not find any more of the rapid scope studies that met the inclusion
criteria but at a cost of some 1200 extra studies identified in total.
9
3.2
Introduction of controlled vocabulary
At this stage a specialist librarian was consulted to assist in the selection of controlled
vocabulary using MeSH and EMTREE terms.
In both cases, controlled vocabulary terms were chosen in each of four categories
►
►
►
►
Terms to identify dental implant studies
Terms to identify radiology studies
Terms to identify studies which investigate planning or assessment of cases
Terms to identify comparative studies
These terms were different for the MeSH and the EMTREE vocabularies.
The intention was then to combine, in each of the four categories, the controlled
vocabulary terms with the free text terms using the Boolean operator “OR”. The four
categories would then be combined using the Boolean operator “AND”.
3.2.1
PubMed/Medline
The US National Library of Medicine MeSH browser was explored and the following
terms were introduced:
►
Terms to identify dental implant studies
DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT SUPPORTED
DENTAL IMPLANTATION
DENTAL IMPLANTS
►
Terms to identify radiology studies
RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL
TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY
RADIOLOGY
IMAGING, THREE DIMENSIONAL
►
Terms to identify studies which investigate planning or assessment of cases
COMPREHENSIVE DENTAL CARE
DENTIST’S PRACTICE PATTERNS
“OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE)”
►
Terms to identify comparative studies
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
COMPARATIVE STUDY
10
Through experimentation with the search terms, some idiosyncrasies of the
PubMed/Medline database were discovered. For example, the free text terms
“assessment” and “planning” were initially changed to “assess*” and “plan*”. The
intention was that the wildcard “*” would identify a broader range of studies. For
example, it was expected that “plan*” would identify studies that contained the words
“plan” and “planned” as well as “planning”. Surprisingly, when a trial search was run
with these terms, the result was less sensitive. For example, the title of the study by
Frei contains the word “planning” [3]. The trial search containing the free text term
“plan*” did not return this study. On balance, it was decided to include both “planning”
and “plan*” as well as “assessment” and “assess” so as not to compromise sensitivity.
The details of the final PubMed/Medline search are shown in Table 8. The result of the
final Pubmed/Medline search is shown in Table 9. Whilst the introduction of the
controlled vocabulary returned 1108 studies, significantly more than using free text
terms alone, it was considered that this represented an appropriate balance of
sensitivity and specificity.
Terms to find
comparative
studies
Table 8 - Final pilot Pubmed search
11
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Final
PubMed/
Medline
Exists in
Medline
database
1108






Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes





ᵡ

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 9 - Results of final pilot PubMed/Medline search
12
3.2.2
Embase
The EMTREE thesaurus was explored and the following terms were introduced:
►
Terms to identify dental implant studies
tooth implant
tooth prosthesis
tooth implantation
►
Terms to identify radiology studies
Tomography
three dimensional imaging
dental radiology
tooth radiography
►
Terms to identify studies which investigate planning or assessment of cases
outcome assessment
clinical practice
dental procedure
►
Terms to identify comparative studies
comparative study
comparative effectiveness
The addition of the controlled vocabulary terms returned 2870 studies compared with
303 on free text terms alone. Nevertheless, the flexibility of the OVID/Embase search
software enabled some refinements to be made to the free text terms. These were
carried out in stages to see the effect of each change. The text terms were restricted to
titles and abstracts only, the adjacency function was used then free text terms
“planning” and “assessment” were removed. Also, to find comparative studies that
assess change of treatment plan or outcome, a combined phrase was used as follows;
“((compar* or chang*) and (outcome* or plan*))”. The result was a return of 1483 with
no loss of studies which met the inclusion criteria. This was considered to represent an
acceptable balance of specificity and sensitivity. The final OVID/Embase search
details are shown in Table 10. The results are shown in Table 11.
13
Table 10 - final pilot OVID/Embase search
14
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Final
OVID/
Embase
Exists in
Embase
database
1483

ᵡ




Yes
No





ᵡ

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 11 - Results of final pilot OVID/Embase search
15
3.3
CENTRAL
A third data base, the Cochrane central register of controlled trails (CENTRAL), was
included in the electronic searches. This is a very much smaller database than
PubMed or Embase. Therefore an analysis of which of the rapid scope studies existed
in the database was carried out. A search was carried out using the free text terms
used successfully in PubMed v7. The search is presented in Appendix D and the
results in Table 12.
Search strategy
Number of
results returned
Meet
inclusion
criteria
Diniz 2008
Fortin 2011
Frei 2004
Reddy 1994
Schropp 2001
Schropp 2011
Do not meet
inclusion
criteria
Chen 2008
Dreiseidler 2009
Jacobs 1999 – 1
Jacobs 1999 – 2
Schropp 2009
Vazquez 2008
Webber 1999

ᵡ
Central
v1
Exists in
Central
Database
65
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ

ᵡ

ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ
ᵡ

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
Returned in search
Not returned in search
Table 12 - Trial search results in the CENTRAL database
The CENTRAL search was successful in returning the only three rapid scope studies
that existed in the database.
16
4
4.1
Conclusion and discussion
Medline
The final search strategy on free text terms was based on PubMed v7. This returned
all the “rapid scope papers” which met the inclusion criteria and fails to return some of
the ones that did not meet the inclusion criteria.
The final change in the PubMed free text search was in response to one missing paper
from the rapid scope list. The broad term “chang*” was used in an attempt to include
this paper. There is some concern that the final adjustment may have introduced bias
because the term was introduced to return one study from the rapid scope.
Nevertheless, it was a broad, rather than specific, term and this change identified a
further 68 studies.
The date limit of 20 years was included earlier in the trial searches in an attempt to
reduce the number of studies. 20 years seemed a reasonable time period during which
imaging methods and research methodology have changed dramatically.
Nevertheless, on reflection, there seemed no good reason to use a date limitation. The
studies would later be subject to a quality assessment in any event. Removal of the
date limitation returned only an additional 14 studies.
The question arose of whether a Medline search should be carried out using the OVID
search software. A trial search was carried out and OVID was found to return a
different number of studies than PubMed. Therefore, OVID and PubMed clearly search
the same Medline database differently. Nevertheless, it is largely a repeat of the same
search. It was, therefore, considered to be a reasonable strategy to use the PubMed
search software for Medline and the OVID search software for Embase. In this way the
search would benefit from both methods whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication.
17
4.2
Embase
For the free text part of the pilot study, Embase v1 and v2 were based on earlier
PubMed searches. Embase v3 was based on the final, free text, PubMed search and
returned 303 studies. When identifying the rapid scope studies, the results of Embase
v3 were as good as Embase v1 which returned 1273 studies and better than Embase
v2 which returned 715 studies. In 2006, Wong et al commented, “To date, search
strategy development has focused more on MEDLINE than on Embase. Search
strategies developed for MEDLINE cannot be directly translated for use in other
databases because indexing practices vary and thesaurus terms are not equivalent
across databases.” [15] This prompted an exploration of specific strategies which may
be more suitable for use in searching Embase. A strategy using key words taken
directly from the rapid scope studies was attempted. (Table 6) Nevertheless, this
strategy was no more successful then Embase v3 in identifying the rapid scope studies
which met the inclusion criteria. It did lose substantial specificity, however, returning
some 1200 additional studies for consideration, including all but one of the rapid scope
studies which did not meet the inclusion criteria. It was decided that the Embase v3,
the same search as PubMed v7 provided the best balance of sensitivity and specificity
for the free text search.
The OVID search software was found to have some flexibility which did not exist in
PubMed. For example, the adjacency function is not available in PubMed. This
enabled, for example, the identification of the word “dental” up to 5 words away from
“implant” in text from the study. The final pilot search returned all of the rapid scope
studies which met the inclusion criteria and existed in Embase. All but one of the
studies which did not meet the inclusion criteria were also returned. Nevertheless,
1499 studies was felt to be a manageable number of studies and an appropriate
balance between specificity and sensitivity.
4.3
CENTRAL
The CENTRAL database pilot search returned only 65 studies. Nevertheless this
database contains only some 500,000 studies compared with some 21,000,000 in
PubMed and 25,000,000 in Embase. The search strategy, again based on PubMed v7,
18
correctly identified the single rapid scope study which existed in the CENTRAL
database and met the inclusion criteria. It also returned the two rapid scope studies
which did not meet the inclusion criteria. Given the small number of studies returned, it
was not considered that the search strategy for CENTRAL needed to be refined by
including controlled vocabulary.
19
5
Grey Literature pilot searches
20
Trial search
Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index
1.
Diniz, A.F., et al., Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using
conventional spiral tomography. Clinical oral implants research, 2008. 19(3):
p. 249-53.
3 studies identified
2.
Fortin, T., et al., Panoramic Images versus Three-Dimensional Planning
Software for Oral Implant Planning in Atrophied Posterior Maxillary: A
Clinical Radiological Study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research,
2011.
This study not in database
3.
Frei, C., D. Buser, and K. Dula, Study on the necessity for cross-section
imaging of the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases
in implant dentistry. Clinical oral implants research, 2004. 15(4): p. 490-7.
23 studies identified
4.
Reddy, M.S., et al., A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of
panoramic radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement
of root form dental implants. Clinical oral implants research, 1994. 5(4): p.
229-38.
3 studies identified
5.
Schropp, L., A. Wenzel, and L. Kostopoulos, Impact of conventional
tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral surgery, oral
medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics, 2001. 92(4): p.
458-63.
16 studies identified
6.
Schropp, L., et al., Comparison of panoramic and conventional crosssectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clinical oral
implants research, 2011. 22(4): p. 424-9.
1 study identified
21
Trial search
Opengrey
A search for the term “Dental Radiography” returned only 6 studies. None met the
inclusion criteria
22
Trial search
IADR archive of conference proceedings
23
Trial search – hand searching of key
journals
Of the six studies identified by rapid scoping, four were from the journal “Clinical Oral
Implants Research”. A trial search of PubMed/Medline was carried out to identify every
article published in this journal so that a convenient list could be produced to enable
hand searching of journal titles.
This exercise produced a list of 2233 articles from 1990 to present. Individual article
titles could be clicked so that, where the title warrants further investigation, an abstract
is instantly available. The first page of results is presented below:
When the results of the electronic search are available, a decision can be made about
which key journals should be hand searched by this method.
24
Trial search
Clinicaltrials.gov
Results of search for” radiography AND dental implant*”
9 studies returned
25
Trial search
who.int/trialsearch/
Results of search for” radiography AND dental implant*”
2 studies returned
26
Trial search
Proquest Dissertations and Theses
27
Trial search
EthOS Electronic theses
28
Appendix A Embase search v1
Same as:
PubMed v1
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry) AND (Radiograph* OR Radiolog* OR
Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR evaluation OR efficacy OR impact OR
diagnostic thinking OR therapeutic efficacy OR patient outcome OR comparison OR
comparative)
29
30
Appendix B Embase search v2
Same as:
PubMed v3
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry OR oral implant*) AND (Radiograph* OR
Radiolog* OR Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment)
31
Appendix C Embase search v4
32
Appendix D CENTRAL search
Same as:
(Dental Implant* OR Implant dentistry OR oral implant*) AND (Radiograph* OR
Radiolog* OR Tomograph* OR Imag*) AND (planning OR assessment) AND (compar*
OR chang*)
33
Appendix E Keywords from rapid scope studies
Chen LC, Lundgren T, Hallstrom H,Cherel F. Comparison of different methods of
assessing alveolar ridge dimensions prior to dental implant placement. Journal of
Periodontology 2008; 79:401-405.
Alveolar ridge; computerized tomography; mapping;
measurement.
Diniz AF, Mendonca EF, Leles CR, Guilherme AS, Cavalcante MP,Silva MA.
Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using conventional spiral
tomography. Clinical oral implants research 2008; 19:249-253.
conventional spiral tomography, implant dentistry, treatment planning
Dreiseidler T, Mischkowski RA, Neugebauer J, Ritter L,Zoller JE. Comparison of
cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for
assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. The International journal of oral &
maxillofacial implants 2009; 24:216-225.
Computerised tomography, cone-beam imaging, dental implants, digital volume
tomography, panoramic tomography, three-dimensional imaging.
Fortin T, Camby E, Alik M, Isidori M,Bouchet H. Panoramic Images versus ThreeDimensional Planning Software for Oral Implant Planning in Atrophied Posterior
Maxillary: A Clinical Radiological Study. Clinical implant dentistry and related
research 2011;
CT imaging, panoramic images, planning, radiological assessment, sinus floor
elevation
Frei C, Buser D,Dula K. Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of the
posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant dentistry.
Clinical oral implants research 2004; 15:490-497.
conventional spiral tomography, cross-section imaging, implant dentistry,
34
panoramic radiography, radiographic examination, vertical distortion
Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Naert I, Quirynen M, Hermans R,Van Steenberghe D.
Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for pre-operative planning of
endosseous implants. Dento maxillo facial radiology 1999; 28:37-41.
tomography, X-ray computed; dental implant, endosseous; jaw
Jacobs R, Adriansens A, Verstreken K, Suetens P,van Steenberghe D.
Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral implant surgery.
Dento maxillo facial radiology 1999; 28:105-111.
tomography, X-ray computed; dental implant, endosseous; radiography, dental
Reddy MS, Mayfield-Donahoo T, Vanderven FJ,Jeffcoat MK. A comparison of the
diagnostic advantages of panoramic radiography and computed tomography
scanning for placement of root form dental implants. Clinical oral implants research
1994; 5:229-238.
Not given
Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Calibration of radiographs by
a reference metal ball affects preoperative selection of implant size. Clinical oral
investigations 2009; 13:375-381.
Radiography . Periapical . Panoramic . Implant
planning . Calibration . Magnification . Reference ball
Schropp L, Stavropoulos A, Gotfredsen E,Wenzel A. Comparison of panoramic and
conventional cross-sectional tomography for preoperative selection of implant size.
Clinical oral implants research 2011; 22:424-429.
calibration, implant planning, implant size, panoramic, preoperative, radiography,
reference ball, tomography
35
Schropp L, Wenzel A,Kostopoulos L. Impact of conventional tomography on
prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral
pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics 2001; 92:458-463.
Not given
Vazquez L, Saulacic N, Belser U,Bernard JP. Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in
the preoperative planning of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical
study of 1527 consecutively treated patients. Clinical oral implants research 2008;
19:81-85.
dental implant, imaging, inferior alveolar nerve injury, mandible, panoramic
radiography, radiology
Webber RL,Messura JK. An in vivo comparison of diagnostic information obtained
from tuned-aperture computed tomography and conventional dental radiographic
imaging modalities. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and
endodontics 1999; 88:239-247.
Not given
36
6
References
1.
Diniz, A.F., et al., Changes in the pre-surgical treatment planning using
conventional spiral tomography. Clinical oral implants research, 2008. 19(3): p.
249-53.
2.
Fortin, T., et al., Panoramic Images versus Three-Dimensional Planning Software
for Oral Implant Planning in Atrophied Posterior Maxillary: A Clinical Radiological
Study. Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2011.
3.
Frei, C., D. Buser, and K. Dula, Study on the necessity for cross-section imaging of
the posterior mandible for treatment planning of standard cases in implant
dentistry. Clinical oral implants research, 2004. 15(4): p. 490-7.
4.
Reddy, M.S., et al., A comparison of the diagnostic advantages of panoramic
radiography and computed tomography scanning for placement of root form dental
implants. Clinical oral implants research, 1994. 5(4): p. 229-38.
5.
Schropp, L., A. Wenzel, and L. Kostopoulos, Impact of conventional tomography
on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral
Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 2001. 92(4): p. 458-463.
6.
Schropp, L., et al., Comparison of panoramic and conventional cross-sectional
tomography for preoperative selection of implant size. Clinical oral implants
research, 2011. 22(4): p. 424-9.
7.
Chen, L.C., et al., Comparison of different methods of assessing alveolar ridge
dimensions prior to dental implant placement. Journal of Periodontology, 2008.
79(3): p. 401-5.
8.
Dreiseidler, T., et al., Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography
and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry. The
International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 2009. 24(2): p. 216-225.
9.
Jacobs, R., et al., Predictability of reformatted computed tomography for preoperative planning of endosseous implants. Dento maxillo facial radiology, 1999.
28(1): p. 37-41.
10. Jacobs, R., et al., Predictability of a three-dimensional planning system for oral
implant surgery. Dento maxillo facial radiology, 1999. 28(2): p. 105-111.
11. Schropp, L., et al., Calibration of radiographs by a reference metal ball affects
preoperative selection of implant size. Clinical oral investigations, 2009. 13(4): p.
375-81.
12. Vazquez, L., et al., Efficacy of panoramic radiographs in the preoperative planning
of posterior mandibular implants: a prospective clinical study of 1527 consecutively
treated patients. Clinical oral implants research, 2008. 19(1): p. 81-5.
13. Webber, R.L. and J.K. Messura, An in vivo comparison of diagnostic information
obtained from tuned-aperture computed tomography and conventional dental
radiographic imaging modalities. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral
Radiology, and Endodontics, 1999. 88(2): p. 239-247.
37
14. Torgerson, C., Systematic Reviews. Continuum Research Methods, ed. R.
Andrews2003, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
15. Wong, S.S., N.L. Wilczynski, and R.B. Haynes, Comparison of top-performing
search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic
reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Journal of the Medical Library Association :
JMLA, 2006. 94(4): p. 451-5.
38