ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Reference Levels for Dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Critical Appraisal of Global Progress and Remaining Gaps.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is now firmly established in dental and maxillofacial practice, providing three-dimensional visualization for implant planning, endodontics, orthodontics, and oral surgery. However, the expansion of the use of dental CBCT units worldwide has outpaced efforts to standardize and optimize radiation doses delivered to patients. Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are meant to fill this gap, acting as benchmarks that flag facilities where doses may need investigation or optimization. Despite this well-established regulatory concept, uptake of DRLs for dental CBCT varies widely from one country to the next. In this review, we examine where things currently stand globally: the regulatory basis for DRLs, the dose metrics and classification schemes different countries rely on, the DRL values reported in national documents and peer-reviewed literature, and the methodological inconsistencies that make cross-country comparison difficult. Only a small number of countries, mostly in Europe and Japan, have published official national DRLs for dental CBCT. Even among these, there is substantial variation in the dose descriptor used (dose-area product being the most common), in whether classification is based on field of view or clinical indication, and in the resulting DRL values themselves. Perhaps most notably, only one country has established pediatric-specific DRLs for dental CBCT. We also consider the barriers standing in the way of wider adoption: uneven regulatory infrastructure between countries, a lack of standardized dosimetric protocols for CBCT, limited participation in national dose surveys, and the particular difficulty of overseeing CBCT use in private dental practices that fall outside conventional radiology governance. Moving forward, harmonizing dose metrics internationally, expanding multinational surveys, integrating automated dose-tracking tools, and prioritizing pediatric dose optimization will all be important. Building a stronger global framework for dental CBCT DRLs is essential to keeping pace with an imaging modality that continues to grow in clinical utilization.
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.