ABSTRACT
Background The prevalence of total edentulism differs significantly between countries and between cities/regions within the same country. It can be affected by various factors, such as age, sex, and socioeconomic factors along with lifestyle and health behavior. Positive findings on panoramic radiographs are frequently observed in totally edentulous patients (TEP) during routine screening. Objectives This study aimed to retrospectively determine the prevalence of total edentulism and to evaluate the distribution and location of positive findings on panoramic radiographs of TEP at a dental school in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Methods A total of 12,428 digital panoramic radiographs of patients aged ≥35 years seeking treatment at a dental school from January 2018 to December 2021 were evaluated to determine the prevalence of total edentulism. Retained root stumps, impacted teeth, radiolucent, and radiopaque lesions were detected on the panoramic radiographs of the TEP. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Among the 12,428 patients, 521 (4.2%) showed total edentulism on their panoramic radiographs. The prevalence of edentulism was the highest among patients aged >65 years (n=305, 4.5%), men (n=246, 4.2%), and non-Saudi citizens (n=300, 4.4%). A total of 198 radiographic findings were identified in 150 patients. The frequency rates of retained root stumps and impacted teeth were 19.2% (n=100) and 4.6% (n=24), respectively. Radiolucent and radiopaque lesions each accounted for 2.5% (n=13) of the lesions. Conclusions The prevalence of edentulism was higher in patients aged >65 years, male patients, and non-Saudi citizens. Retained root stumps were most often encountered among the four positive findings on panoramic radiographs. Considering the high frequency of positive radiographic findings in TEP, panoramic radiographs must be routinely obtained for TEP, but caution must be exercised to reduce the effects of radiation.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. RESULTS: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidence-based dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.
