Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:24:36.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE IN DENTISTRY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2017

Małgorzata Chruściel-Nogalska ,
Tomasz Smektała ,
Marcin Tutak ,
Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak  and
Raphael Olszewski
Małgorzata Chruściel-Nogalska
Affiliation:
Department of Prosthodontics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin
Tomasz Smektała
Affiliation:
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Pomeranian Medical University, [email protected]
Marcin Tutak
Affiliation:
Private Dental Practice
Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak
Affiliation:
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin
Raphael Olszewski
Affiliation:
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Technological development and the need for electronic health records management resulted in the need for a computer with dedicated, commercial software in daily dental practice. The alternative for commercial software may be open-source solutions. Therefore, this study reviewed the current literature on the availability and use of open-source software (OSS) in dentistry.

Methods: A comprehensive database search was performed on February 1, 2017. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals with a focus on the use or description of OSS were retrieved. The level of evidence, according to Oxford EBM Centre Levels of Evidence Scale was classified for all studies. Experimental studies underwent additional quality reporting assessment.

Results: The screening and evaluation process resulted in twenty-one studies from 1,940 articles found, with 10 of them being experimental studies. None of the articles provided level 1 evidence, and only one study was considered high quality following quality assessment.

Twenty-six different OSS programs were described in the included studies of which ten were used for image visualization, five were used for healthcare records management, four were used for educations processes, one was used for remote consultation and simulation, and six were used for general purposes.

Conclusions: Our analysis revealed that the dental literature on OSS consists of scarce, incomplete, and methodologically low quality information.

Keywords

Evidence-based dentistryReviewSoftwareSoftware designSoftware validation
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Mini-Theme: Stories of HTA Impact , 2017 , pp. 487 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Opensource.org [Internet]. Open source initiative. Available from: https://opensource.org/osd (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
2. Oshwa.org [Internet]. Open source hardware association. http://www.oshwa.org/definition/ (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
3. News.netcraft.com [Internet]. Netcraft. Web server survey March 2014. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
4. Ratib, O, Rosset, A, Heuberger, J. Open Source software and social networks: Disruptive alternatives for medical imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78:259–265.Google Scholar
5. Scarsbrook, AF. Open-source software for radiologists: A primer. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:120–130.Google Scholar
6. Jalbert, F, Paoli, JR. Osirix: Free and open-source software for medical imagery. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2008;109:53–55.Google Scholar
7. Erickson, BJ, Langer, S, Nagy, P. The role of open-source software in innovation and standardization in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2: 927–931.Google Scholar
8. Fda.gov [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. General principles of software validation; Final guidance for industry and FDA staff. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm085371.pdf (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
9. Mdss.com [Internet]. European Commission DG Health and Consumer. Unit of Health Technology and Cosmetics. Guidelines on the qualification and classification of standalone software used in healthcare within the regulatory framework of medical devices. http://www.mdss.com/mainpages/updatetomeddevguidelines.htm (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
10. Cebm.net [Internet]. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of evidence scale; [updated November 2009]. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/ (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
11. Casp-uk.net [Internet]. Critical appraisal skills programme 2014. CASP checklists. http://www.casp-uk.net/#!checklists/cb36 (accessed August 24, 2016).Google Scholar
12. Al-Rawi, W, Easterling, L, Edwards, PC. Development of a mobile device optimized cross platform-compatible oral pathology and radiology spaced repetition system for dental education. J Dent Educ. 2015;79:439–447.Google Scholar
13. Chen, X, Yuan, J, Wang, C, Huang, Y, Kang, L. Modular preoperative planning software for computer-aided oral implantology and the application of a novel stereolithographic template: A pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12:181–193.Google Scholar
14. De-Deus, G, Marins, J, Neves Ade, A, et al. Assessing accumulated hard-tissue debris using micro-computed tomography and free software for image processing and analysis. J Endod. 2014;40: 271–276.Google Scholar
15. El Tantawi, MM, Abdelsalam, MM, Mourady, AM, Elrifae, IM. e-Assessment in a limited-resources dental school using an open-source learning management system. J Dent Educ. 2015;79: 571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kossioni, AE, Kavadella, A, Tzoutzas, I, et al. The development of an exemplar e-module for the continuing professional development of European dentists. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17: 38–44.Google Scholar
17. McDonald, CJ, Schadow, G, Barnes, M, et al. Open Source software in medical informatics–Why, how and what. Int J Med Inform. 2003;69:175–184.Google Scholar
18. Ruellas, AC, Tonello, C, Gomes, LR, et al. Common 3-dimensional coordinate system for assessment of directional changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149:645–656.Google Scholar
19. Sa, E, Sekikawa, A, Linkov, F, Lovalekar, M, LaPorte, RE. Open source model for global collaboration in higher education. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71:165.Google Scholar
20. Santos, O Jr, Pinheiro, LR, Umetsubo, OS, Sales, MA, Cavalcanti, MG. Assessment of open source software for CBCT in detecting additional mental foramina. Braz Oral Res. 2013;27: 128–135.Google Scholar
21. Sicurezza, E, Palazzo, G, Leonardi, R. Three-dimensional computerized tomographic orbital volume and aperture width evaluation: A study in patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111: 503–507.Google Scholar
22. Silva, EJ, Muniz, BL, Pires, F, et al. Comparison of canal transportation in simulated curved canals prepared with ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold systems. Restor Dent Endod. 2016;41:1–5 Google Scholar
23. Silva, EJ, Vieira, VC, Tameirão, MD, et al. Quantitative transportation assessment in curved canals prepared with an off-centered rectangular design system. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:e43.Google Scholar
24. Truppe, M, Schicho, K, Kawana, H, Ewers, R. Perspectives of teleconsultation in craniomaxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:808–812.Google Scholar
25. Villoria, EM, Lenzi, AR, Soares, RV, et al. Post-processing open-source software for the CBCT monitoring of periapical lesions healing following endodontic treatment: Technical report of two cases. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Webster, PC. The rise of open-source electronic health records. Lancet. 2011;14:1641–1642.Google Scholar
27. Weissheimer, A, Menezes, LM, Sameshima, GT, et al. Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142:801–813.Google Scholar
28. Wurche, B, Klauer, G, Nürnberger, F. “PULS.” - A blog-based online-magazine for students of medicine of the Goethe University Frankfurt. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2013;30:Doc3.Google Scholar
29. Yoo, TS, Metaxas, DN. Open science–Combining open data and open source software: Medical image analysis with the Insight Toolkit. Med Image Anal. 2005;9:503–506 Google Scholar
30. Huang, X, Lin, J, Demner-Fushman, D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:359–363.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Global cooperation in higher education: ‘supercourse’. Nat Med. 2000;6:358.Google Scholar
32. Eysenbach, G, Sa, ER. Code of conduct is needed for publishing raw data. BMJ. 2001;21:166.Google Scholar
33. Technologyreview.com [Internet]. Lemos R. Open-source could mean an open door for hackers. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419257/open-source-could-mean-an-open-door-for-hackers/ (accessed March 27, 2017).Google Scholar
34. Shih, G. App review series introduction. J Digit Imaging. 2015;28:7–9.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chruściel-Nogalska et al supplementary material

Table S1

Download Chruściel-Nogalska et al supplementary material(File)
File 21.7 KB