Panoramic radiographs are a relatively simple technique that is commonly used in all dental specialties. In panoramic radiographs, in addition to the formation of real images of metal objects, ghost images may also form, and these ghost images can hinder an accurate diagnosis and interfere with the accuracy of radiology reports. Dentists must understand the formation of these images in order to avoid making incorrect radiographic diagnoses. Therefore, the present study sought to present a study of the formation of panoramic radiograph ghost images caused by metal objects in the head and neck region of a dry skull, as well as to report a clinical case n order to warn dentists about ghost images and to raise awareness thereof. An understanding of the principles of the formation of ghost images in panoramic radiographs helps prevent incorrect diagnoses.
Body Piercing ; Dentists ; Diagnosis ; Head ; Humans ; Neck ; Radiography, Panoramic ; Skull ; Specialties, Dental

Purpose: Metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus may play a role in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PC); however, this association remains to be explored in the context of specific PC stages. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence for an association between diabetes and overall, early, or advanced PC risk. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception until September 2023. Cohort and case-control studies that assessed PC risk in adult males (≥18 years) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus or diabetes (if there was no distinction between diabetes type) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study bias; those with NOS<7 were excluded. Evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results: Thirty-four studies (n=26 cohorts and n=8 case-controls) were included. Of these, 32 assessed diabetes and all PC stages combined, 12 included early PC stages, and 15 included advanced PC stages. Our meta-analysis showed diabetes had a protective effect against early PC development (n=11, risk ratio [RR]=0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.61–0.83, I2=84%) but no association was found for combined (n=21, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.79–1.13, I2=99%) or advanced PC stages (n=15, RR=0.96; 95% CI=0.77–1.18, I2=98%) at diagnosis. According to GRADE, the evidence certainty was very low. Conclusions Diabetes may be protective against early PC stages, yet evidence linking diabetes to risk across all stages, and advanced PC specifically, is less conclusive. High heterogeneity may partially explain discrepancy in findings and was mostly associated with study design, method used for PC diagnosis, and risk measures. Our results may aid risk stratification of males with diabetes and inform new approaches for PC screening in this group, especially considering the reduced sensitivity of prostate-specific antigen values for those with diabetes.

Purpose: Metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus may play a role in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PC); however, this association remains to be explored in the context of specific PC stages. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence for an association between diabetes and overall, early, or advanced PC risk. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception until September 2023. Cohort and case-control studies that assessed PC risk in adult males (≥18 years) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus or diabetes (if there was no distinction between diabetes type) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study bias; those with NOS<7 were excluded. Evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results: Thirty-four studies (n=26 cohorts and n=8 case-controls) were included. Of these, 32 assessed diabetes and all PC stages combined, 12 included early PC stages, and 15 included advanced PC stages. Our meta-analysis showed diabetes had a protective effect against early PC development (n=11, risk ratio [RR]=0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.61–0.83, I2=84%) but no association was found for combined (n=21, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.79–1.13, I2=99%) or advanced PC stages (n=15, RR=0.96; 95% CI=0.77–1.18, I2=98%) at diagnosis. According to GRADE, the evidence certainty was very low. Conclusions Diabetes may be protective against early PC stages, yet evidence linking diabetes to risk across all stages, and advanced PC specifically, is less conclusive. High heterogeneity may partially explain discrepancy in findings and was mostly associated with study design, method used for PC diagnosis, and risk measures. Our results may aid risk stratification of males with diabetes and inform new approaches for PC screening in this group, especially considering the reduced sensitivity of prostate-specific antigen values for those with diabetes.

Purpose: Metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus may play a role in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PC); however, this association remains to be explored in the context of specific PC stages. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence for an association between diabetes and overall, early, or advanced PC risk. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception until September 2023. Cohort and case-control studies that assessed PC risk in adult males (≥18 years) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus or diabetes (if there was no distinction between diabetes type) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study bias; those with NOS<7 were excluded. Evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results: Thirty-four studies (n=26 cohorts and n=8 case-controls) were included. Of these, 32 assessed diabetes and all PC stages combined, 12 included early PC stages, and 15 included advanced PC stages. Our meta-analysis showed diabetes had a protective effect against early PC development (n=11, risk ratio [RR]=0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.61–0.83, I2=84%) but no association was found for combined (n=21, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.79–1.13, I2=99%) or advanced PC stages (n=15, RR=0.96; 95% CI=0.77–1.18, I2=98%) at diagnosis. According to GRADE, the evidence certainty was very low. Conclusions Diabetes may be protective against early PC stages, yet evidence linking diabetes to risk across all stages, and advanced PC specifically, is less conclusive. High heterogeneity may partially explain discrepancy in findings and was mostly associated with study design, method used for PC diagnosis, and risk measures. Our results may aid risk stratification of males with diabetes and inform new approaches for PC screening in this group, especially considering the reduced sensitivity of prostate-specific antigen values for those with diabetes.

Purpose: Metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus may play a role in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PC); however, this association remains to be explored in the context of specific PC stages. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence for an association between diabetes and overall, early, or advanced PC risk. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception until September 2023. Cohort and case-control studies that assessed PC risk in adult males (≥18 years) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus or diabetes (if there was no distinction between diabetes type) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study bias; those with NOS<7 were excluded. Evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results: Thirty-four studies (n=26 cohorts and n=8 case-controls) were included. Of these, 32 assessed diabetes and all PC stages combined, 12 included early PC stages, and 15 included advanced PC stages. Our meta-analysis showed diabetes had a protective effect against early PC development (n=11, risk ratio [RR]=0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.61–0.83, I2=84%) but no association was found for combined (n=21, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.79–1.13, I2=99%) or advanced PC stages (n=15, RR=0.96; 95% CI=0.77–1.18, I2=98%) at diagnosis. According to GRADE, the evidence certainty was very low. Conclusions Diabetes may be protective against early PC stages, yet evidence linking diabetes to risk across all stages, and advanced PC specifically, is less conclusive. High heterogeneity may partially explain discrepancy in findings and was mostly associated with study design, method used for PC diagnosis, and risk measures. Our results may aid risk stratification of males with diabetes and inform new approaches for PC screening in this group, especially considering the reduced sensitivity of prostate-specific antigen values for those with diabetes.

Purpose: Metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus may play a role in the development and progression of prostate cancer (PC); however, this association remains to be explored in the context of specific PC stages. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence for an association between diabetes and overall, early, or advanced PC risk. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception until September 2023. Cohort and case-control studies that assessed PC risk in adult males (≥18 years) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus or diabetes (if there was no distinction between diabetes type) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study bias; those with NOS<7 were excluded. Evidence certainty was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Results: Thirty-four studies (n=26 cohorts and n=8 case-controls) were included. Of these, 32 assessed diabetes and all PC stages combined, 12 included early PC stages, and 15 included advanced PC stages. Our meta-analysis showed diabetes had a protective effect against early PC development (n=11, risk ratio [RR]=0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.61–0.83, I2=84%) but no association was found for combined (n=21, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.79–1.13, I2=99%) or advanced PC stages (n=15, RR=0.96; 95% CI=0.77–1.18, I2=98%) at diagnosis. According to GRADE, the evidence certainty was very low. Conclusions Diabetes may be protective against early PC stages, yet evidence linking diabetes to risk across all stages, and advanced PC specifically, is less conclusive. High heterogeneity may partially explain discrepancy in findings and was mostly associated with study design, method used for PC diagnosis, and risk measures. Our results may aid risk stratification of males with diabetes and inform new approaches for PC screening in this group, especially considering the reduced sensitivity of prostate-specific antigen values for those with diabetes.