Background: This systematic review aimed to determine whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) yield consistent results in determining the degree of impacted lower third molar teeth based on existing classification parameters. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PLOS One, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additionally, a manual search was also carried out. There were no restrictions on publication dates, allowing a broader scope of literature. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, all studies that compared the outcomes of CBCT and panoramic images concerning the position of impacted teeth, according to the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications, were included. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One study used the Pell & Gregory classification to assess differences, finding a significant result (P< 0.001). Two studies used both the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications. In these assessments, one study found no significant differences in the Winter classification (p= 1.000) or the Pell & Gregory assessment (p= 0.500). However, another study identified significant differences using both the winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications (P< 0.001). One study conducted an assessment using only Winter classification and found no significant differences between PR and CBCT (P> 0.05). Conclusion There are inter-modality differences in the agreement concerning the degree of impaction of the third molar when using CBCT compared with panoramic imaging across various classification levels. Improved assessment methods are necessary to determine the most appropriate imaging modality for therapeutic management.

Background: This systematic review aimed to determine whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) yield consistent results in determining the degree of impacted lower third molar teeth based on existing classification parameters. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PLOS One, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additionally, a manual search was also carried out. There were no restrictions on publication dates, allowing a broader scope of literature. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, all studies that compared the outcomes of CBCT and panoramic images concerning the position of impacted teeth, according to the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications, were included. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One study used the Pell & Gregory classification to assess differences, finding a significant result (P< 0.001). Two studies used both the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications. In these assessments, one study found no significant differences in the Winter classification (p= 1.000) or the Pell & Gregory assessment (p= 0.500). However, another study identified significant differences using both the winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications (P< 0.001). One study conducted an assessment using only Winter classification and found no significant differences between PR and CBCT (P> 0.05). Conclusion There are inter-modality differences in the agreement concerning the degree of impaction of the third molar when using CBCT compared with panoramic imaging across various classification levels. Improved assessment methods are necessary to determine the most appropriate imaging modality for therapeutic management.

Background: This systematic review aimed to determine whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and panoramic radiography (PR) yield consistent results in determining the degree of impacted lower third molar teeth based on existing classification parameters. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PLOS One, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additionally, a manual search was also carried out. There were no restrictions on publication dates, allowing a broader scope of literature. Only articles published in English were eligible for inclusion. Furthermore, all studies that compared the outcomes of CBCT and panoramic images concerning the position of impacted teeth, according to the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications, were included. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One study used the Pell & Gregory classification to assess differences, finding a significant result (P< 0.001). Two studies used both the Winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications. In these assessments, one study found no significant differences in the Winter classification (p= 1.000) or the Pell & Gregory assessment (p= 0.500). However, another study identified significant differences using both the winter and the Pell & Gregory classifications (P< 0.001). One study conducted an assessment using only Winter classification and found no significant differences between PR and CBCT (P> 0.05). Conclusion There are inter-modality differences in the agreement concerning the degree of impaction of the third molar when using CBCT compared with panoramic imaging across various classification levels. Improved assessment methods are necessary to determine the most appropriate imaging modality for therapeutic management.

Background: This study investigated the predictive value of orthopantomography (OPG) for the difficulty of extracting impacted mandibular third molars, in comparison with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: In this descriptive quantitative investigation, two oral and maxillofacial radiologists evaluated OPG and three-dimensional CBCT images according to the Pell-Gregory and Winter classifications. The results for the classification were compared using the chi-square test, and the prediction of difficulty was assessed using the Pederson scale, with a significance level of p< 0.05. Results: The study included 30 patients (14 men and 16 women), providing a total of 53 samples of impacted mandibular third molars. Of these, 30 (56.6%) were from the right side and 23 (43.4%) from the left. There was a statistically significant difference between the OPG and CBCT images concerning their relation to the mandibular ramus (p< 0.05). However, evaluations based on occlusal lines and angulation showed no significant differences (p> 0.05). According to the Pederson scale, significant differences were observed between OPG and CBCT in predicting extraction difficulty (p< 0.05). Conclusion CBCT offered a more accurate assessment of the surgical difficulty associated with mandibular third molars than OPG. OPG views frequently failed to adequately visualize the region of the mandibular ramus, influencing the perceived difficulty of mandibular third molar surgery. In certain cases, the use of CBCT imaging is crucial.

Background: The pathogenesis of orofacial cleft (OFC) is multifactorial, involving both genetic and non-genetic factors, the latter of which play a key role in the development of these anomalies. This paper addresses the incidence of OFC in Indonesia, with a focus on identifying and examining the distribution of contributory factors, including parental medical history, pregnancy history, and environmental influences. Methods: The study was conducted through the collection of primary data. An interdisciplinary research team from Indonesia administered a standardized questionnaire to parents who had children with OFC and who had provided informed consent. The case group comprised 133 children born with cleft lip and/or palate, and the control was 133 noncleft children born full-term. The risk factors associated with OFC anomalies were analyzed using the chi-square test and logistic regression. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results: The study comprised 138 children, of whom 82 were boys (59.4%) and 56 were girls (40.6%). Among them, 45 patients (32.6%) presented with both cleft lip and cleft palate, 25 individuals (18.1%) had a cleft palate only, and 28 patients (20.3%) had a cleft lip only. OFC was found to be significantly associated with a maternal family history of congenital birth defects (p< 0.05), complications during the first trimester (p< 0.05), consumption of local fish (p< 0.05), caffeine intake (p< 0.05), prolonged medication use (p< 0.05), immunization history (p< 0.05), passive smoking (p< 0.05), and X-ray exposure during pregnancy (p< 0.05). Conclusion The findings indicate close relationships between the incidence of OFC and maternal medical history, prenatal factors, and environmental influences.