ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2026
Dose optimization in CBCT in dentistry: a survey among EADMFR members.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to provide an overview of current cone beam CT (CBCT) practices in European dental clinics.
methodsFrom February to May 2023, 186 European EADMFR members were invited to complete an online survey. Participants were asked: (1) to provide exposure settings for 4 diagnostic scenarios; (2) if and how they adjust for age and body type; (3) whether they follow established protocols when selecting settings; and (4) if the Dose Area Product (DAP) is registered for CBCT scans.
resultsA total of 59 (32%) eligible responses were received. There was a large variation in exposure parameters among clinicians within the same diagnostic scenario. Across scenarios, only voxel size and field of view (FOV) differed significantly (P < .05), with smaller settings being chosen for endodontic diagnostics and larger parameters for full-jaw imaging for implant planning. For young patients, most respondents reduced FOV (70%), mA (67%), and exposure time (59%). For larger patients, most increased mA (54%) and kV (52%). Written protocols were more frequently employed than manufacturer-recommended settings (75% vs 50% reported "most of the time" or "always"). More frequent usage of manufacturer-recommended settings correlated with larger FOV settings (P < .05). 90% reported registering the DAP.
conclusionsCBCT exposure parameter selection lacks consistency. Only FOV and voxel size were consistently adjusted for the indication. New guidelines providing guidance on the selection of CBCT settings could reduce variation between clinicians and enhance the uniformity of the quality of care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of uniformity in CBCT parameter selection highlights the need for updated, indication-oriented, and patient-specific guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.