Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is widely used in dentistry; however, many practitioners have limited knowledge regarding its appropriate indications and radiation safety protocols. Optimizing CBCT use is essential for both patient safety and diagnostic efficacy. This study aimes to evaluate Turkish dentists' and dental specialists' awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding CBCT usage, radioprotection, and dose-reduction measures. A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2024, involving 306 volunteer dentists with 1 to 51 years of clinical experience. Participants completed an 18-item questionnaire covering CBCT usage frequency, imaging indications, technical parameter selection, radiation protection and training. Statistical analysis included Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Implant planning, lesion evaluation, and root morphology assessment were the most common reasons for CBCT use. Oral and maxillofacial radiologists used CBCT more frequently than other specialists. A significant relationship was observed between frequency of CBCT use and the selection of technical parameters (voxel size, field of view) (p < 0.001). While lead apron usage was common, thyroid collar usage varied and showed a significant relationship with scan frequency (p = 0.001). Most participants relied on automatic settings and did not consistently consult a radiologist either before or after imaging. The study reveals knowledge gaps in CBCT usage and radiation protection practices among dental professionals. Ongoing professional education and clearer guidelines are essential to ensure safe and effective use of CBCT technology. • A total of 306 dentists and dental specialists participated in this nationwide survey. • Implant planning, pathology, and root morphology were the top reasons for CBCT use. • A significant correlation was found between CBCT frequency and technical parameter selection. • Thyroid collar usage was significantly associated with CBCT acquisition frequency. • Knowledge gaps remain regarding radiation protection and consultation with radiologists.
Coşkun et al. (2025) studied this question.