SynthesisDento maxillo facial radiology2026
Methodological quality of dental cone-beam CT diagnostic reference levels: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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.
- Nationwide registry-based automated dose monitoring for dental CBCT: a feasibility study.Oral radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of dental cone-beam CT (CBCT) diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) studies and reports, identify factors that limit DRL comparison, assess the level and methods of dose optimization, and clarify obstacles, both in dose optimization and DRL establishment.
methodsA systematic search was applied across 5 databases and gray literature with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member countries contacted, to identify dental CBCT DRL studies and national reports. Studies/reports containing DRL establishment procedures, insufficient methodological detail, and adopted DRLs were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified Effective Public Health Practice Project tool, aligned with a checklist developed in accordance with International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 135.
resultsOf 320 reports screened, 19 were included. Diagnostic reference levels were clinical indication or field of view (FOV) based, using dose/kerma-area-product (DAP/KAP) metrics. Overall, 63% of studies had moderate methodological quality; DRL comparability was limited due to gaps or inconsistencies in reporting of exposure parameters, FOV, and heterogeneous indication grouping. Substantial dose variability was observed within the same clinical indications (2- to 10-fold) and FOV categories (3- to 10-fold), reflecting routine use of large FOVs irrespective of indication, reliance on manufacturer default protocols, limited understanding/education/training of exposure settings or optimization strategies, non-standardized system FOV settings, and unauthorized CBCT operators.
conclusionsThe majority of CBCT DRL studies are not of high quality. Improving DRL reporting quality requires interdisciplinary collaboration; digitized-dose recording with robust retrospective management of protocols, dose, indications; national dose registries for periodic dose audit; improved clinician education/engagement, strengthened regulatory oversight, and potentially international standardized frameworks.
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.