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.