Incidental findings in dental radiology are concerning for family doctors

Paul Monsarrat; Antoine Galibourg; Karim Nasr; Norbert Telmon; Delphine Maret

doi:10.1515/med-2019-0050

Article Open Access

Incidental findings in dental radiology are concerning for family doctors

Paul Monsarrat , Antoine Galibourg , Karim Nasr , Norbert Telmon and Delphine Maret

Published/Copyright: July 31, 2019

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Medicine Volume 14 Issue 1

Abstract

Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT) is an imaging technology increasingly used in dentistry. Depending on the size of the examination area, visualization of anatomical structures outside the indication area may reveal incidental findings (IF). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to 1) evaluate the frequency, location and different types of incidental findings (IF) revealed during CBCT examinations; 2) identify potential influencing factors such as gender or age; 3) highlight what the family doctor should know about CBCT and the benefits for medical care.

70 retrospective studies were included. 60% of IF are in the naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses. Carotid calcifications were observed with a mean prevalence of 9% CI95% [2-21]). Meta-regression showed a significant association of this prevalence with age, irrespective of gender.

Given the high frequency of IF, with varying severity, the whole medical community is fully involved, and its opinion should be sought to ensure the best possible management for the patients. Physicians may also require CBCT examinations that would have been previously prescribed by a dentist, that may serve to better orientate investigations toward another imaging technique. The family doctor is therefore the dentist’s main interlocutor and the main coordinator of the follow-up of IF.

Keywords: Incidental Findings; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Diseases; Review; Systematic

1 Introduction

The extraordinary growth of radiology has benefitted dentistry [1], more particularly with the advent of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Its use has grown massively in dental care over recent years in Europe [2], with indications including implantology, dentomaxillofacial surgery, endodontics, periodontics, obstructive sleep apnea and orthodontics [3, 4]. The clinical applications of CBCT imaging in the preoperative assessment of impacted teeth, orthodontics or implantology each accounted for about 15% of published papers [5]. In clinical practice, CBCT examination for implant planning seems to be the most common reason for referral to radiological centers. The growth trend followed an exponential curve [6].

There are two excellent reasons why physicians stand to gain by looking more closely at this imaging modality. First, which CBCT examinations of anatomical structures can be useful to physicians and dental practitioners? Currently, applications extend to the base of the skull and the face as a whole, so depend on the size of the acquisition or field of view (FOV). The potentially viewable structures in a large FOV are presented in Table 1. Compared with traditional medical multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), CBCT uses much lower radiation doses, is less costly, has higher resolution, and produces more detailed images of hard tissues, although it provides less soft tissue contrast [7, 8]. CBCT imaging could eventually replace conventional MSCT for some tasks such as otolaryngology-related applications, temporal bone assessment or analysis of the upper airway for obstructive sleep apnea [9].

Table 1

List of bone structures and spaces of head and neck in CBCT imaging (depending on field of view size)

Naso-oropharyngeal airway	Skull base
Sinus ethmoid	*Anterior*
Inferior, middle, superior meatus	Frontal bone
Cavum, pharyngeal tonsils, Rosenmuller dimple	Ethmoid bone and cribriform plate
Palatine tonsilles	Concha – middle and superior nasal
Glosso-epiglottic furrow	Sphenoid bone - wing (lesser)
Paranasal sinuses	Canal – optic
Sinus maxillary	*Middle*
Sinus frontal	Sphenoid bone - body and wing (greater)
Sinus sphenoid	Fossa – hypophyseal
Temporomandibular joint	Temporal bone - petrous part
Temporal fossa and articular tubercula	Fissure - inferior and superior orbital
Mandibular condyle	Foramen rotundum, ovale, lacerum, spinosus
Articular space	*Posterior*
Cervical vertebrae region	Clivus
Atlas with arches (anterior and posterior)	Occipital bone, condyle, protuberance (external)
Axis with dens (odontoid process)	Temporal bone - styloid process
Cervical vertebrae	Canal – carotid
Outer, middle and internal ear	Foramen - jugular, magnum, stylomastoid
Auditory meatus (external)	Calvarial
Malleus, Stapes, Incus	Temporal bone – shell
Cochlea	Parietal bone
Semicircular canals	Suture – coronal, sagittal, lambdoid
Temporal bone - mastoid process	Bregma, Lambda, Pterion
Auditory meatus (internal)	Face skeleton
Focal calcifications	Mandible, foramen mandibular and mental
Tonsils	Maxilla
Lymph node	Hyoid bone
Sinusal	Nasal bone
Arterial (e.g. facial vessels, internal carotid)	Vomer
Salivary glands	Piriform aperture (anterior nasal aperture)
Pineal gland	Zygomatic bone
Hypophysis	Palatine bone
Falx cerebri	Concha – inferior nasal
Stylohyoid, stylomandibular ligament	Lacrimal bone

The second reason concerns incidental findings; as CBCT resolution improves and its use increases, occult pathologies, unrelated to the original diagnostic query, are being detected more and more frequently. The likelihood of such incidental finding increases with the head volume included in the scan [10]. Their nature and frequency can nevertheless vary widely [11]. Most are extragnathic findings, occurring outside the region of interest and thus highlighting the necessity to inspect the whole image with attention, with the possibility of a second reading by an appropriate professional radiologist for review of large FOV [11, 12]. The family doctors and other physicians are particularly involved in taking charge of patients once the incidental finding has been made. Although the image is interpreted by a physician or dentist specialized in radiology (OMFR) [4], the care the patient subsequently receives is not based solely on this diagnosis. Further investigations with medical referrals are often warranted [13]. This is not a question of exaggerated multiplication of examinations but of orientation to ensure the best care for the patient. The CBCT is therefore an integral part of the therapeutic arsenal that all medical community should know.

Several articles reported incidental findings in CBCT scans, although focusing on specific populations, FOVs or regions of interest [14]. A recent umbrella review in medical imaging has drawn attention to the high prevalence of incidental imaging findings and the need for precise guidelines about its management [15]. CBCT exams were not included in this study [16]. However, there is a need to have a more comprehensive overview of the available evidence, to provide both clinicians and policy makers with robust data that could form the basis of care guidelines edited by panels of experts in radiology.

The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to 1) evaluate the frequency, location and different types of incidental findings (IF) revealed during CBCT examinations; 2) identify potential influencing factors such as gender or age; 3) highlight what the family doctor should know about CBCT and the benefits for medical care.

2 Methods

2.1 Data sources and searches

We followed the PRISMA statement. The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid SP and MEDLINE via Pubmed (1966 to present); LILACS via the Virtual Health Library search form (1982 to present); the Web of Science® via Thomson Reuters (1900 to present). Reference lists of query studies were inspected to identify any additional relevant published or unpublished data. Google Scholar was also queried to identify additional references. We sought out unpublished and on-going trials by searching the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ICTRP. There was no restriction on language of publication.

We employed an iterative search strategy in order to adopt a systematic approach. This two-step process took shape as the process evolved (final search strategy detailed in Supplemental Text). The last search was conducted on 2019/04/09.

2.2 Study selection

Two review authors (PM, AG) assessed the titles and available abstracts of all studies identified by the initial search and excluded any clearly irrelevant studies. Two review authors (PM, DM) independently assessed full paper copies of reports of potentially eligible studies using the inclusion criteria.

2.3 Inclusion criteria

All studies dealing with incidental or abnormal findings in CBCT examinations were considered to be eligible. Results of studies were not included if findings were directly related to the reasons CBCT examinations were indicated (e.g. sinus mucosal thickening or ostial obstruction for suspected sinusitis). Dento-alveolar incidental findings were not considered in this systematic review. There was no restriction concerning the size of the CBCT field of view.

2.4 Data extraction

From article full-texts we extracted: 1) the indication of CBCT and the place of the examination; 2) information about the study population (number of examinations, mean age, gender); 3) information on the kind of CBCT apparatus (brand, field of view), the physical constants (kV, mAs); 4) details about the type of incidental findings and their prevalence; 5) information about how the CBCT images were read and interpreted (responsibility, blinding or calibration); 6) how incidental findings and patients were managed or planned to be managed (follow-up). For each article, we also categorized the searched anatomical regions into naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses, temporomandibular joint, cervical vertebrae, ear, skull base, calvaria, face skeleton and focal calcifications. The authors were not contacted.

2.5 Data synthesis and analysis

In order to provide a pooled estimate of the prevalence, we performed random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were carried out on the double arc cosine transformed proportions, using the inverse of the variance of the transformed proportion as the study weight. The pooled transformed proportions along with their confidence interval were back transformed to a proportion. A meta-regression was performed to determine a potential effect of the mean age and gender of patients on a prevalence increase of incidental findings. Statistics and plots were generated using R version 2.15.0 (libraries meta 4.3-2 and metaphor 1.9-8).

3 Results

Among the 5535 records identified, 70 were unique retrospective studies. Details of the selection process are given in Fig. S1.

3.1 Description of the retrospective studies

Of the 70 retrospective studies (Table 2), 19 were carried out in the USA (27%), 12 Brazil (17%) and 10 Turkey (14%). According to the region of interest explored (ROI) and included within the FOV, 60% of studies concerned the naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses. This category includes several types of abnormalities such as ethmoidal and maxillary sinus (e.g. sinusitis, mucosal thickening), nasal findings (e.g. septum deviated, concha bullosa, turbinate hypertrophy), tonsil findings (e.g. hypertrophy), airway narrowing/obstruction or soft palate and tongue findings (e.g. elongated epiglottis or soft palate, tongue hypertrophic). Airway narrowing/obstruction was reported in 5 studies, ranging from 0.5% to 52% of incidental findings [17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Temporomandibular joints, cervical vertebrae, ear, and skull base were explored in 36%, 27%, 19% and 33%, respectively. Focal calcifications were explored in 33 (47%) of studies. Consequently, we had enough data to perform meta-analyses on reported carotid artery, stylohyoid/stylomandibular ligament, tonsilloliths, pineal gland calcifications, Posterior ponticle, malignancies and abnormalities of the sella turcica.

Table S1 provides details, for each retrospective study, about indications of examinations, population, radiological apparatus, type of incidental findings (proportion of findings by ROI), how the CBCT was read and how the incidental findings were managed. The two most commonly used types of CBCT apparatus were the i-CAT (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, USA) and NewTom® (Verona, Italy) families, with 25 and 16 studies, respectively. Oral and Maxillo-Facial radiologists (OMFR) were reported to have examined the dataset in more than 45 studies. About a third of studies reported information about follow-up of patients, or the need to do it; in particular, some studies focused on incidental findings that required referral [17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. Of the 6 studies clearly reporting suspected malignancies of skull base and abnormalities on the sella turcica [17, 20, 22, 23, 32, 33], none provided details about patient follow-up, such as diagnostic, prognostic, or histological findings or short- or long-term assessments. Table S1 shows a high prevalence of incidental findings whatever the FOV and the ROI, potentially concerning several medical specialties.

3.2 Meta-analyses on prevalence data

We identified 33 studies (47%) dealing with focal calcification discoveries. Proportions of Carotid Artery Calcifications (CAC) were identifiable in 23 studies and referred for an examination of the CBCT volume in the intra and/ or extracranial part of the carotid artery. Using a random effect meta-analysis, the overall proportion of CAC with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated at 0.09 CI95% [0.02;0.21]. Proportions of extra-cranial CAC (ECAC) were identified in 18 studies, of which 10 were common with those of CAC. The overall proportion was estimated at 0.05 CI95% [0.02;0.10]. The forest plot in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b

Figure 1

Meta-analysis on prevalence data about carotid calcifications according to their localization.

Part a, upper. Forest plot of the meta-analysis on prevalence data (see Supplemental Information). An event was defined as the presence of at least one carotid calcification when data are available for both extra and intracranial. The mean fixed and random model global prevalence are provided, together with heterogeneity. Part a, lower. Meta-regression plot of the linear relationship between the prevalence of carotid calcifications and the mean age of patients. Part b, upper. Forest plot of the meta-analysis on prevalence data (see Supplemental Information). An event was defined as the presence of at least one extracranial carotid calcification. Part b, lower. Meta-regression plot of the linear relationship between the prevalence of extracranial carotid calcifications and the mean age of patients. Part c. Carotid artery calcifications (white arrows) discovered incidentally in the supra-cavernous section of the internal carotid artery of a 60-year-old man. The patient was referred to his family doctor.

(upper parts) revealed a great heterogeneity among studies, as statistically confirmed by an I2 value greater than 97%, p<0.01. So, there is a need to look for factors that can explain such heterogeneity. In both cases, meta-regression demonstrated that CAC and ECAC were significantly associated with mean age (0.014 CI95% [0.008; 0.02] and 0.008 CI95% [0.005; 0.012], respectively), independently of the proportion of females (0.001 CI95% [-0.013; 0.015] and 0.001 CI95% [-0.006; 0.007], respectively). Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b (lower parts) illustrate the positive relationship that was inferred between age and proportion of calcification discoveries.

Proportions of Stylohyoid Ligament Calcifications (SLC) were identified in 19 studies (Fig. 2a, upper part); the overall proportion was estimated at 0.16 CI95% [0.07;0.28]. The mean age but not proportion of females was positively and independently associated with SLC (0.011 CI95% [0.003; 0.019] and 0.005 CI95% [-0.005; 0.015], respectively). Fig. 2a (lower part) illustrates the positive relationship that was inferred between age, gender and the proportion of SLC discoveries. The overall proportion for Posterior ponticle from 10 studies (Fig. 2b) was estimated at 0.11 CI95% [0.04;0.20]. Although considerable heterogeneity (I2=99.5%, p<0.001) was found, no significant effect emerged for age and gender.

Figure 2

Meta-analysis on prevalence data about stylohyoid ligament calcifications (SHL) and Posterior ponticle (PP).

Part a, upper. Forest plot of the meta-analysis on prevalence data. An event was defined as the presence of at least one SHL calcification. The mean fixed and random model global prevalence is provided, together with heterogeneity. Part a, lower. Meta-regression plot of the linear relationship between the prevalence of SHL calcifications, the mean age of patients (significant) and the proportion of females (not significant). Part b, upper. Forest plot of the meta-analysis on prevalence data. An event was defined as the presence of at least one PP, partial or complete. Part b, lower. Meta-regression plot demonstrated no linear relationship with the mean age of patients and proportion of females.

Pineal gland and tonsil calcifications exhibited similar overall proportions, estimated at 0.12 CI95% [0.04; 0.22] and 0.074 CI95% [0.03; 0.13], respectively. In both cases, age significantly increased the prevalence of these calcifications, independently of gender. Arising from 14 and 11 studies, the pooled estimates for suspected malignancies and abnormalities on the sella turcica were estimated at 0.003 CI95% [0.002; 0.006] and 0.002 CI95% [0.001; 0.005], respectively.

4 Discussion

In this systematic review, the 70 identified retrospective studies reported a high prevalence of incidental findings whatever the regions of interest, FOVs or populations (Table 2), potentially concerning several medical specialties, reasons for consultation or histories.

4.1 Incidental findings in CBCT are a source of concern for the entire medical community

60% of studies concerned the naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses (Table 2). CBCT may be used to explore qualitatively and quantitatively the upper pharyngeal airway. It is an accurate tool for airway evaluation and measurements (i.e. total volume airway or nasopharyngeal minimum cross-sectional area) can be used as indicators of the presence and severity of obstructive sleep apnea [34]. It can help to identify risk factors and/or to predict treatment outcomes (e.g. discovery of restrictions of the aeropharyngeal sector, adenotonsillar hypertrophy, deviated nasal septum, turbinate hypertrophy). The presence of the cervical vertebrae or temporo-mandibular joints may give indications about osteoarthritic changes. It is noteworthy that few incidental findings indicated high severity such as malignancies of skull base, abnormal radiological signs on the sella turcica or the clivus, or severely calcified carotid artery.

Thus, depending on location and the urgency to address for referral (Table 1, Table 2), several medical specialties may be involved, e.g. orthodontists, dentists, internists, endocrinologists, angiologists, neurologists, rheumatologists, otolaryngologists, general practioners/family doctors or oral surgeons.

Table 2

Description of the retrospective studies included.

The number and proportions of studies are given according to their year of publication, the region of interest explored, and some particular abnormalities reported by the authors.

	Number of studies (%)
Country	70 (100%)

Brazil	12 (17%)
China	2 (3%)
Denmark	1 (1.5%)
Germany	1 (1.5%)
Greece	1 (1.5%)
India	5 (7%)
Iran	7 (10%)
Italy	2 (3%)
Korea	1 (1.5%)
Kenya	1 (1.5%)
Netherlands	1 (1.5%)
Taiwan	1 (1.5%)
Turkey	10 (14%)
United Kingdom	3 (4%)
USA	19 (27%)
Saudi Arabia	2 (3%)
Switzerland	1 (1.5%)
Year	70 (100%)

2007	1 (1.5%)
2010	1 (1.5%)
2011	4 (5%)
2012	8 (11%)
2013	6 (9%)
2014	14 (20%)
2015	9 (13%)
2016	6 (9%)
2017	14 (20%)
2018	7 (10%)
Region of Interest (ROI)	70 (100%)

Naso-oropharyngeal airway and paranasal sinuses	42 (60%)
Temporomandibular joint	25 (36%)
Cervical vertebrae region	19 (27%)
Ear	13 (19%)
Skull base	23 (33%)
Calvarial	10 (14%)
Face skeleton	28 (40%)
Focal calcifications	33 (47%)
Particular abnormalities

Suspected malignancy of skull base	14 (20%)
Abnormality on sella turcica	11 (16%)
Stylohyoid Ligament calcification	19 (27%)
Intracranial Carotid Artery Calcifications (ICAC)	10 (14%)
Extracranial Carotid Artery Calcifications (ECAC)	18 (26%)
Pineal gland	15 (21%)
Tonsilloliths	20 (29%)
Posterior ponticle	10 (14%)

Particularly, we identified 47% of studies dealing with focal calcification discoveries (Table 2). Proportions of CAC were identifiable in 23 studies in the intra and/ or extracranial part of the carotid artery (Table 2), with a positive relationship inferred between age and proportion of calcification discoveries (Fig. 1). The presence of CAC has been associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes such as myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or vascular death [35, 36]. Calcifications may be responsible for stenosis, forming parts of deeper and mature plaques [37]. They are thus a specific marker of the vulnerability and extent of atherosclerotic lesions in other vascular beds [36]. The prevalence of CAC was found to be higher in populations with systemic medical risk factors including type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome or postmenopausal women [38, 39]. Other risk factors such as age, smoking history, total cholesterol level, and hypertension should also be included in the overall risk assessment [37]. Fig. 1c shows the presence of bilateral calcifications of the internal carotid arteries. The calcifications are in the cavernous sinus. These calcifications, in the tunica media, suggest that the patient may be diabetic, either uncontrolled or undiagnosed.

Regarding other focal calcifications (Table 2), they can be considered as degenerative changes related to age and are not problematic as such. Nevertheless, they may also constitute markers of increased risk in patients or explain some clinical signs that were not necessarily the reason for consultation (e.g. migraines). Pineal gland calcifications have been associated as a risk factor for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage or cerebral infarction [40] and also infectious, cancer or degenerative diseases, possibly linked to diminished melatonin production [41]. Posterior ponticle, a bony ossicle occurring on the atlas vertebra, has been reported to be associated with headache and unexplained cervical pain or vertigo. A careful check should also be made for its presence before screw placement by surgeons [42]. Tonsilloliths may develop from a reactive foreign nidus such as organic debris or bacteria within a tonsillar crypt. The concretions have been associated with halitosis and tonsillar abscess [43]. An elongated stylohyoid complex has been associated with symptoms caused by compression of nerves, compression of carotid artery or tendinitis, such as cervicofacial and throat pain, or dysphagia [44].

During the screening of articles, we also identified case reports (Table S2) with worrying findings : mixed-density signal in the greater wing of the sphenoid [45], intracranial arachnoid cyst referred to the neurosurgical department [46], non-Hodgkin lymphoma [47], benign notochordal cell tumor or partially empty and enlarged sella turcica with possible disruption of the posterior wall [48], potential calcified meningioma or schwannoma observed in the middle cranial fossa [49], pituitary adenoma [50], lesions discovered on the clivus/basisphenoid [51, 52, 53] and severe stenoses of the internal carotid artery [37]. Further examination by magnetic resonance imaging was generally required.

4.2 The need to share CBCT examinations between physicians and dentists

It is fundamental that the CBCT volume be read in full, in an effort to review it with a systematic approach [2]. For this reason, guidelines recommend that volumes should be checked by a specialist radiologist [4]so that the level of significance of the findings can be determined, and whether there is a need for referral to a family doctor and/ or a medical specialist [54]. Conversely, physicians may require radiologic examinations that would have been previously prescribed by a dentist (CBCT). Such examinations could be sufficient in themselves or may serve to better orientate investigations toward another imaging technique (e.g. MSCT, MRI, ultrasonography). It should not be forgotten that exposing the patient to the smallest possible amount of radiation is also one of the major concerns in both medical and dental imaging, particularly for adolescents and children, who are much more sensitive to radiation exposure [55]. While the risk is low at the individual scale for CBCT, far below that of MSCT, when multiplied by the increasingly large population of patients exposed to diagnostic imaging, it becomes a significant public health concern [7, 56, 57]. Family doctors are strategic regarding prevention of radiation risks [58].

4.3 The family doctor, follow-up coordinator

Given the high prevalence of IF, dentists should describe the possibility of these incidental discoveries in their consent forms and during information of patients. It is necessary to make it a routine in daily clinical practice the reporting of these IF in the clinical files [59]. Establishing a standardized course of action when an IF is discovered is nevertheless impossible and unwanted. Decision-making is evidence-based; in other words, it is based on a practitioner’s expertise supported by the available clinical evidence and underpinned by the patient’s needs and preferences [60]. However, a frame of general guidelines is lacking. We strongly recommend that the family doctor be the coordinator of follow-up [58] (Fig. 3).

Figure 3

A general framework for the CBCT in oral medicine according to patient-centered care principles.

The model highlights the need for shared decision making between the patient and dentist. The patient should be an integral part of care pathway, from acceptance of the possibility of incidental discovery before the CBCT exam to its management and follow-up.

The physicians should be also aware of the cost to society of the intervention as well as the anxiety that pathologies and incidentalomas can produce in patients [61, 62]. Additional testing following discovery of an incidentaloma may thus induce a cascade effects of events, increasing the risk of false positive results [63].

The question of what should be done in case of such findings outside the primary region of interest is one that every physician is likely to face during his or her professional career. At a time when it is accepted that patients must be fully informed [58], it is our duty to tell them about an incidental/occult pathology [62]. The high frequency of incidental findings, with very low rates of malignancies and high rates of false-positives, the potential emotional cost for the patients and their relatives and the financial cost for society of IF monitoring, necessitate a real discussion with the patient before performing a middle or large field CBCT [64]. We therefore agree with Powel et al. that it would be appropriate to consider replacing the word “incidental findings” with “followable findings” [62].

5 Conclusion

The use of CBCT has grown exponentially in dental care. Given the frequency of incidental findings, with varying severity, the whole medical community is fully involved, and its opinion should be sought to ensure the best possible management for the patients.

The question of what should be done in case of such findings outside the primary region of interest is one that every physician is likely to face during her or his professional career. At a time when it is accepted that patients must be fully informed, it is our duty to tell them about an incidental/occult pathology. The high frequency of incidental findings, with very low rates of malignancies and high rates of false-positives, the potential emotional cost for the patients and their relatives and the financial cost for society of IF monitoring, necessitate a real discussion with the patient. Patients should be clearly informed that the entire volume will be reviewed in full using a systematic approach, and that all findings will be recorded in the patient’s record and explained to the patient.

Physicians may also require CBCT examinations that would have been previously prescribed by a dentist that may serve to better orientate investigations toward another imaging technique. The family doctor should therefore be the dentist’s main interlocutor and the main coordinator of the follow-up of the incidental findings.

Tel. +33 6 84 47 48 55, Fax. +33 5 61 25 47 19

# These authors contributed equally to this work

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Susan Becker for proofreading, Dr Jean-Noel Vergnes for advice, and Dr Elisabeth Coudrais for CBCT exam.

Abbreviations

CAC:: Carotid Artery Calcifications
CBCT:: Cone Beam Computed Tomography
FOV:: Field Of View
IF:: Incidental Finding
OMFR:: Oral and Maxillo-Facial Radiologist
MSCT:: Medical multi-Slice Computed Tomography

Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Chan S. The importance of strategy for the evolving field of radiology. Radiology. 2002;224(3):639-48. Epub 2002/08/31. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2243011390 PubMed PMID: 12202693Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Miracle AC, Mukherji SK. Conebeam CT of the head and neck, part 2: clinical applications. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(7):1285-92. Epub 2009/05/23. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1654 PubMed PMID: 19461061Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[3] Benavides E, Rios HF, Ganz SD, An CH, Resnik R, Reardon GT, et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant Dent. 2012;21(2):78-86. Epub 2012/03/03. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31824885b5 PubMed PMID: 22382748Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Edwards R, Altalibi M, Flores-Mir C. The frequency and nature of incidental findings in cone-beam computed tomographic scans of the head and neck region: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(2):161-70. Epub 2013/02/02. PubMed PMID: 2337213210.14219/jada.archive.2013.0095Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Wright B. Contemporary medico-legal dental radiology. Aust Dent J. 2012;57 Suppl 1:9-15. Epub 2012/03/06. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01653.x PubMed PMID: 22376092Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Gambhir RS. Primary care in dentistry - an untapped potential. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(1):13-8. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.152239 PubMed PMID: 25810982; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4366984Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[7] Kawai T, Tanaka R, Yeung AWK, von Arx T, Bornstein MM. Frequency and type of incidentally detected radiodensities in the maxillary sinus: a retrospective analysis using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Clin Oral Investig. 2018. Epub 2018/06/28. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2541-8 PubMed PMID: 29951976Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] O’Sullivan JW, Muntinga T, Grigg S, Ioannidis JPA. Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review. BMJ. 2018;361:k2387. Epub 2018/06/18. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2387 PubMed PMID: 29914908; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6283350Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Monsarrat P, Telmon N, Maret D. Incidental imaging findings on oral radiology. BMJ. 2018;362:k4103. Epub 2018/09/28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4103 PubMed PMID: 30266760Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Barghan S, Tahmasbi Arashlow M, Nair MK. Incidental Findings on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Studies outside of the Maxillofacial Skeleton. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:9196503. Epub 2016/07/04. doi: 10.1155/2016/9196503 PubMed PMID: 27462350; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4947649Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[11] Enciso R, Shigeta Y, Nguyen M, Clark GT. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography incidental findings between patients with moderate/severe obstructive sleep apnea and mild obstructive sleep apnea/healthy patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012;114(3):373-81. Epub 2012/08/07. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.03.014 PubMed PMID: 22862979; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3428237Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Flaiban E, Alonso MBCC, Freitas CFd, Torres FC, Lipiec-Ximenes M, Costa ALF. Incidental findings in patients evaluated with cone beam computed tomography for orthodontic treatment. RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia. 2017;65:134-13810.1590/1981-863720170002000063180Search in Google Scholar

[13] Pette GA, Norkin FJ, Ganeles J, Hardigan P, Lask E, Zfaz S, et al. Incidental findings from a retrospective study of 318 cone beam computed tomography consultation reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(3):595-603. Epub 2012/05/23. PubMed PMID: 22616053.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Rheem S, Nielsen I, Oberoi S. Incidental findings in the maxillofacial region identified on cone-beam computed tomography scans. Journal of Orthodontic Research. 2013;1(1):33-3910.4103/2321-3825.112254Search in Google Scholar

[15] Alsufyani NA. Cone beam computed tomography incidental findings of the cervical spine and clivus: retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123(6):e197-e217. Epub 2017/03/19. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2017.02.011 PubMed PMID: 28411008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Cobb J. Pathology observed on cone beam computed tomographic scans: a comparison of prevalence and type of incidental findings for child/adolescents and adults 2013Search in Google Scholar

[17] Drage N, Rogers S, Greenall C, Playle R. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography in orthodontic patients. J Orthod. 2013;40(1):29-37. Epub 2013/03/26. doi: 10.1179/1465313312y.0000000027 PubMed PMID: 23524545Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Damaskos S, Tsiklakis K, Syriopoulos K, der Stelt Pv. Extra- and intra-cranial arterial calcifications in adults depicted as incidental findings on cone beam CT images. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2015;73(3):202-9. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2014.97986710.3109/00016357.2014.979867Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Dogramaci EJ, Rossi-Fedele G, McDonald F. Clinical importance of incidental findings reported on small-volume dental cone beam computed tomography scans focused on impacted maxillary canine teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;118(6):e205-9. Epub 2014/12/03. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2014.09.006 PubMed PMID: 25457895Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Lopes IA, Tucunduva RM, Handem RH, Capelozza AL. Study of the frequency and location of incidental findings of the maxillofacial region in different fields of view in CBCT scans. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46(1):20160215. Epub 2016/10/05. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20160215 PubMed PMID: 27604390Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[21] Pande S, Kumbhare S, Parate A. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography: Relate and relay. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine and Radiology. 2015;27(1):48-54. doi: 10.4103/0972-1363.16708010.4103/0972-1363.167080Search in Google Scholar

[22] Pliska B, DeRocher M, Larson BE. Incidence of significant findings on CBCT scans of an orthodontic patient population. Northwest Dent. 2011;90(2):12-6. Epub 2011/06/15. PubMed PMID: 21667587Search in Google Scholar

[23] Price JB, Thaw KL, Tyndall DA, Ludlow JB, Padilla RJ. Incidental findings from cone beam computed tomography of the maxillofacial region: a descriptive retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(11):1261-8. Epub 2011/11/19. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02299.x PubMed PMID: 22092929Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Mutalik S, Rengasamy K, Tadinada A. Incidental findings based on anatomical location and clinical significance in CBCT scans of dental implant patients. Quintessence Int. 2018;49(5):419-26. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a40112 PubMed PMID: 29629440Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Allareddy V, Vincent SD, Hellstein JW, Qian F, Smoker WR, Ruprecht A. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography images. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:871532. Epub 2013/01/11. doi: 10.1155/2012/871532 PubMed PMID: 23304148; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3523569Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] Warhekar S, Nagarajappa S, Dasar PL, Warhekar AM, Parihar A, Phulambrikar T, et al. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomography and reasons for referral by dental practitioners in indore city (m.p). J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(2):Zc21-4. Epub 2015/04/11. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2015/11705.5555 PubMed PMID: 25859519; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4378801Search in Google Scholar

[27] Zimmerman JN, Lee J, Pliska BT. Reliability of upper pharyngeal airway assessment using dental CBCT: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39(5):489-96. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw079 PubMed PMID: 27999121Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] Schulze R, Friedlander AH. Cone beam CT incidental findings: intracranial carotid artery calcification--a cause for concern. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(10):20130347. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20130347 PubMed PMID: 24086081Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[29] Friedlander AH. Carotid artery calcifications are a risk indicator for both myocardial infarction and stroke. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(5):700. Epub 2013/04/23. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2013.02.003 PubMed PMID: 23601227Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Almog DM, Padberg FT, Jr., Carmel G, Friedlander AH. Previously unappreciated carotid artery stenosis diagnosed by cone beam computerized tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(4):702-5. Epub 2012/12/19. doi: 10.1016/j. joms.2012.09.021 PubMed PMID: 23245518Search in Google Scholar

[31] Friedlander AH. Cone-beam computed tomographic incidental findings--a cause for worry. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(1):3. Epub 2013/12/18. doi: 10.1016/j. joms.2013.09.010 PubMed PMID: 24331561Search in Google Scholar

[32] Macdonald DS, Zhang L, Gu Y. Calcification of the external carotid arteries and their branches. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 41. England2012. p. 615-61810.1259/dmfr/88771381Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[33] Kitkhuandee A, Sawanyawisuth K, Johns J, Kanpittaya J, Tuntapakul S, Johns NP. Pineal calcification is a novel risk factor for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;121:51-4. Epub 2014/05/06. doi: 10.1016/j. clineuro.2014.03.019 PubMed PMID: 24793475Search in Google Scholar

[34] Turgut AT, Karakas HM, Ozsunar Y, Altin L, Ceken K, Alicioglu B, et al. Age-related changes in the incidence of pineal gland calcification in Turkey: A prospective multicenter CT study. Pathophysiology. 2008;15(1):41-8. Epub 2008/04/19. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2008.02.001 PubMed PMID: 18420391Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] Sekerci AE, Soylu E, Arikan MP, Ozcan G, Amuk M, Kocoglu F. Prevalence and Morphologic Characteristics of Ponticulus Posticus: Analysis Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J Chiropr Med. 2015;14(3):153-61. Epub 2016/01/19. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2015.06.003 PubMed PMID: 26778928; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4685186Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[36] Oda M, Kito S, Tanaka T, Nishida I, Awano S, Fujita Y, et al. Prevalence and imaging characteristics of detectable tonsilloliths on 482 pairs of consecutive CT and panoramic radiographs. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:54. Epub 2013/10/16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-13-54 PubMed PMID: 24125195; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3852777Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[37] Prasad KC, Kamath MP, Reddy KJ, Raju K, Agarwal S. Elongated styloid process (Eagle’s syndrome): a clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(2):171-5. Epub 2002/01/30. PubMed PMID: 1181591610.1053/joms.2002.29814Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[38] Tahmasbi-Arashlow M, Barghan S, Bennett J, Katkar R, Nair M. Arrested Pneumatization of the Sphenoid Sinus on Large Field-of-View Cone Beam Computed Tomography Studies Dentistry Journal. 2015;3:67-7610.3390/dj3020067Search in Google Scholar

[39] Sun L, Sun Z, Ma X. Intracranial arachnoid cyst on dental radiography: a diagnostic challenge. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115(3):e53-9. Epub 2012/10/30. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.07.483 PubMed PMID: 23102803Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] MacDonald D, Li T, Leung SF, Curtin J, Yeung A, Martin MA. Extranodal lymphoma arising within the maxillary alveolus: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;124(3):e233-e8. Epub 2017/05/04. doi: 10.1016/j. oooo.2017.04.015 PubMed PMID: 28624341Search in Google Scholar

[41] Newaz ZA, Barghan S, Katkar RA, Bennett JA, Nair MK. Incidental findings of skull-base abnormalities in cone-beam computed tomography scans with consultation by maxillofacial radiologists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(1):127-31. Epub 2014/12/24. doi: 10.1016/j. ajodo.2014.09.019 PubMed PMID: 25533079Search in Google Scholar

[42] Miles DA. Occult pathology detected in cone beam data volumes. Alpha Omegan. 2010;103(4):146-50. Epub 2011/02/15. PubMed PMID: 2131396610.1016/j.aodf.2010.10.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] Maret D, Telmon N, Treil J, Caron P, Nabet C. Pituitary adenoma as an incidental finding in dental radiology: a case report. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):290-1. doi: 10.7326/l14-5004-4 PubMed PMID: 24727848Search in Google Scholar

[44] Jadhav AB, Tadinada A, Rengasamy K, Fellows D, Lurie AG. Clival lesion incidentally discovered on cone-beam computed tomography: A case report and review of the literature. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44(2):165-9. Epub 2014/06/20. doi: 10.5624/isd.2014.44.2.165 PubMed PMID: 24944968; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4061302Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[45] Syed AZ, Zahedpasha S, Rathore SA, Mupparapu M. Evaluation of canalis basilaris medianus using cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016;46(2):141-4. Epub 2016/06/23. doi: 10.5624/isd.2016.46.2.141 PubMed PMID: 27358822; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4925651Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[46] Syed AZ, Mupparapu M. Fossa navicularis magna detection on cone-beam computed tomography. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016;46(1):47-51. Epub 2016/03/24. doi: 10.5624/isd.2016.46.1.47 PubMed PMID: 27051639; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4816771Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[47] Scarfe WC. Incidental findings on cone beam computed tomographic images: a Pandora’s box? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;117(5):537-40. Epub 2014/02/11. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2014.01.002 PubMed PMID: 24508511Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[48] Dawood A, Patel S, Brown J. Cone beam CT in dental practice. Br Dent J. 2009;207(1):23-8. Epub 2009/07/11. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.560 PubMed PMID: 19590551Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A. 2003;100(24):13761-6. Epub 2003/11/12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2235592100 PubMed PMID: 14610281; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC283495Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[50] Petersen LB, Olsen KR, Matzen LH, Vaeth M, Wenzel A. Economic and health implications of routine CBCT examination before surgical removal of the mandibular third molar in the Danish population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(6):20140406. Epub 2015/03/19. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20140406 PubMed PMID: 25785820; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4628400Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[51] Mola E, Visentin G. Radiation risks and family medicine. Eur J Gen Pract. 2011;17(3):190-2. Epub 2011/07/11. doi: 10.3109/13814788.2011.584528 PubMed PMID: 21745120Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[52] Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, Clayton EW, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):219-48, 1. Epub 2008/06/13. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x PubMed PMID: 18547191; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2575242Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[53] Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. Bmj. 1995;310(6987):1122-6. Epub 1995/04/29. PubMed PMID: 7742682; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC254950510.1136/bmj.310.6987.1122Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[54] Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: Time to move from ALARA to ALADA. Imaging Sci Dent. 2015;45(4):263-5. Epub 2016/01/06. doi: 10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.263 PubMed PMID: 26730375; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4697012Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[55] Powell DK. Patient explanation guidelines for incidentalomas: helping patients not to fear the delayed surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):W602. Epub 2014/05/23. doi: 10.2214/ajr.13.12337 PubMed PMID: 24848860Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[56] Wagner J, Aron DC. Incidentalomas: a “disease” of modern imaging technology. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;26(1):3-8. Epub 2012/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j. beem.2011.08.006 PubMed PMID: 22305448Search in Google Scholar

[57] Kole J, Fiester A. Incidental findings and the need for a revised informed consent process. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(5):1064-8. Epub 2013/08/02. doi: 10.2214/ajr.13.11138 PubMed PMID: 23902536Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-07-01

Accepted: 2019-05-05

Published Online: 2019-07-31

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2019-0050

Keywords for this article

Incidental Findings; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Diseases; Review; Systematic

Creative Commons

BY-NC-ND 4.0