Purpose: This study aimed to summarize the impact of neck and head radiation treatment on maxillofacial structures detected on panoramic radiographs. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, the authors searched PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for original research studies up to February 2020 that included the following Medical Subject Headings keywords: words related to “radiotherapy” and synonyms combined with keywords related to “panoramic radiography” and “oral diagnosis” and synonyms. Only original studies in English that investigated the maxillofacial effects of radiotherapy via panoramic radiographs were included. The quality of the selected manuscripts was evaluated by assessing the risk of bias using Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. Results: Thirty-three studies were eligible and included in this review. The main objectives pertained to the assessment of the effects of radiation on maxillofacial structures, including bone architecture alterations, periodontal space widening, teeth development abnormalities, osteoradionecrosis, and implant bone loss. The number of participants evaluated ranged from 8 to 176. Conclusion The interaction between ionizing radiation and maxillofacial structures results in hazard to the tissues involved, particularly the bone tissue, periosteum, connective tissue of the mucosa, and endothelium. Hard tissue changes due to radiation therapy can be detected on panoramic radiographs.

Purpose: This study compared 2 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) systems in the detection of mechanically simulated peri-implant buccal bone defects in dry human mandibles. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four implants were placed in 7 dry human mandibles. Peri-implant bone defects were created in the buccal plates of 16 implants using spherical burs. All mandibles were scanned using 2 CBCT systems with their commonly used acquisition protocols: i-CAT Gendex CB-500 (Imaging Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA; field of view [FOV], 8 cm×8 cm; voxel size, 0.125 mm; 120 kVp; 5 mA; 23 s) and Orthopantomograph OP300 (Intrumentarium, Tuusula, Finland; FOV, 6 cm×8 cm; voxel size, 0.085 mm; 90 kVp; 6.3 mA; 13 s). Two oral and maxillofacial radiologists assessed the CBCT images for the presence of a defect and measured the depth of the bone defects. Diagnostic performance was compared in terms of the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: High intraobserver and interobserver agreement was found (p<0.05). The OP300 showed slightly better diagnostic performance and higher detection rates than the CB-500 (AUC, 0.56±0.03), with a mean accuracy of 75.0%, sensitivity of 81.2%, and specificity of 62.5%. Higher contrast was observed with the CB-500, whereas the OP300 formed more artifacts. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, the present results suggest that the choice of CBCT systems with their respective commonly used acquisition protocols does not significantly affect diagnostic performance in detecting and measuring buccal peri-implant bone loss.