Objectives: Survey by questionnaire is a widely used research method in dental radiology. A major concern in reviews of questionnaires is non-response. The objectives of this study were to review questionnaire studies in dental radiology with regard to potential survey errors and to develop recommendations to assist future researchers. Methods: A literature search with the software search package PubMed was used to obtain internet-based access to Medline through the website www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. A search of the English language peer-reviewed literature was conducted of all published studies, with no restriction on date. The search strategy found articles with dates from 1983 to 2010. The medical subject heading terms used were ''questionnaire'', ''dental radiology'' and ''dental radiography''. The reference sections of articles retrieved by this method were hand-searched in order to identify further relevant papers. Reviews, commentaries and relevant studies from the wider literature were also included. Results: 53 questionnaire studies were identified in the dental literature that concerned dental radiography and included a report of response rate. These were all published between 1983 and 2010. In total, 87 articles are referred to in this review, including the 53 dental radiology studies. Other cited articles include reviews, commentaries and examples of studies outside dental radiology where they are germane to the arguments presented. Conclusions: Non-response is only one of four broad areas of error to which questionnaire surveys are subject. This review considers coverage, sampling and measurement, as well as non-response. Recommendations are made to assist future research that uses questionnaire surveys.

The objectives for this systematic review were to determine if the pre-operative availability of cross-sectional imaging, such as cone beam CT, has a diagnostic impact, therapeutic impact or impact on patients' outcome when placing two dental implants in the anterior mandible to support an overdenture. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE® and Embase were searched up to, and including, February 2013. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they compared the impact of conventional and cross-sectional imaging when placing dental implants in sites including the anterior mandible. An adapted quality assessment tool was used for the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies. Pooled quantitative analysis was not possible and, therefore, synthesis was qualitative. Of 2374 potentially eligible papers, 5 studies were included. Little can be determined from a synthesis of these studies because of their small number, clinical diversity and high risks of bias. Notwithstanding, it may be tentatively inferred that cross-sectional imaging has a therapeutic impact in the more challenging cases. In terms of impact, this review has found no evidence to support any specific imaging modality when planning dental implant placement in any region of the mouth. Therefore, those who argue that cross-sectional imaging should be used for the assessment of all dental implant sites are unsupported by evidence.

Objectives: To investigate the custom and practice of private dental implant practitioners in the north-west of England when planning imaging methods prior to implant placement in the symphyseal region of the edentulous mandible. To gain an understanding of decision-making when prescribing imaging methods. Methods: A web-based questionnaire presented two realistic clinical scenarios. Both were of edentulous patients for whom implant-retained lower complete dentures were planned. A mixed mode survey methodology was employed. Results: 169 dentists were surveyed with an 80% response rate. The results showed no agreement on prescription of imaging methods. Those in the 0-10 years qualified group were significantly associated with the prescription of three-dimensional (3D) imaging. Implant practitioners who place more than 100 implants per year were significantly associated with the non-use of imaging guides and prescription of the same view for both cases. The sample as a whole, however, changed their prescription according to the case difficulty. Those who have a cone beam CT machine available were more likely to use 3D imaging regardless of the difficulty of the case. Conclusions:Existing guidelines are open to interpretation and could be construed to support a range of imaging choices. Training in dental implantology may leave dentists to make their own judgements about selection criteria. The idiosyncratic nature of independent dental practice may be an important factor in the chaotic pattern of prescriptions. There is a need for widely disseminated, evidence-based selection criteria for imaging prior to dental implantology which are clear and specific.