LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES AMONG DENTISTS REGARDING THE USE OF CBCT IN DENTAL PRACTICE

Authors

  • Ana Elena SIRGHE ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • Diana Amalia GRUNZU (LIPSA) ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • Carina BALCOS ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • A. NEMTOI “Stefan Cel Mare" University, Suceava, Romania
  • Adina ARMENCIA ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași
  • Danisia HABA ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22551/j3zb2z50

Abstract

Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is a revolutionary imaging technology in modern dentistry, providing detailed three-dimensional visualization of dental and maxillofacial structures. Despite its advantages, CBCT adoption is influenced by several factors, including costs, training, and professional experience. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge and attitudes of dentists regarding CBCT usage in dental practice and identify the factors influencing its adoption. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a structured online questionnaire completed by 113 dentists. The questionnaire collected data on demographic characteristics, professional experience, frequency of 2D and CBCT use, perceived benefits and limitations, and training levels. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: The results showed that CBCT use was more frequent among specialists (46% weekly use) compared to non-specialists (33.3% daily use of 2D radiographs). Key advantages of CBCT, such as enhanced diagnostic precision and reduced need for exploratory surgical interventions, were recognized by 90.9% of dentists with over 10 years of experience. Barriers included excessive costs (56.6%) and challenges in interpreting 3D images (37.2%). Continuous training was highlighted, with 100% of dentists with 0–5 years of experience participating in specialized courses. Conclusions: CBCT is valued for its superior diagnostic capabilities, but its adoption is hindered by costs and training requirements. Standardized protocols and accessible education programs are essential for wider implementation in dental practices.

Author Biographies

  • Ana Elena SIRGHE, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Medicine

  • Diana Amalia GRUNZU (LIPSA), ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Medicine

  • Carina BALCOS, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Medicine

  • A. NEMTOI, “Stefan Cel Mare" University, Suceava, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine and Biological Sciences

  • Adina ARMENCIA, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Medicine

  • Danisia HABA, ‟Grigore Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iași

    Faculty of Medicine
    “Prof. Dr. N. Oblu” Emergency Clinical Hospital, Iași, Romania

References

1. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. Cone beam computed tomography: A paradigm shift for clinical dentistry. Australian Dental Journal 2008; 53(1): 64-74.

2. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology: Principles and Interpretation (7th ed.). Elsevier, 2014.

3. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed to-mography scanners. European Journal of Radiology 2012; 81(2): 267-271.

4. Patel S, Dawood A. The use and applications of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2007; 40(10): 825-826.

5. Harris D, Buser D. Clinical applications of cone beam computed tomography in dental practice. Inter-national Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 2008; 23(5): 947-957.

6. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodon-tology 2008; 106(1): 106-114.

7. Angelopoulos C. Image quality assessment in cone beam computed tomography. Seminars in Orthodontics 2011; 17(1): 17-24.

8. Price C, Thong W, Clayton N. Economic considerations of cone beam computed tomography in dentistry. British Dental Journal 2012; 212(7): 365-369.

9. European Commission. Radiation protection no. 172: Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology - Evidence-based guidelines. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2012.

10. Alamri HM, Sadrameli M, Alshalhoob M, Alshehri MA, Sayed SE. Applications of CBCT in dental practice: A review of the literature. General Dentistry 2012; 60(5): 390-400.

11. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Bogaerts R, Bosmans H. Impact of CBCT on diagnostic thinking in dentistry: A systematic review. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 2013; 42(8): 20130277.

12. Horner K, Jacobs R, Schulze R. Dental CBCT equipment and facilities: Aspects of radiation protection. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2019; 183(1-2): 28-36.

13. Rodrigues J, Bóscolo FN, Haiter-Neto F, Cadioli FA, de Almeida SM. Cost- effectiveness analysis of CBCT in different dental specialties. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology 2021; 50(4): 20200343.

14. Gupta J, Prabhat MP, Anamika S. Clinical applications of CBCT in dentistry: A review. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology 2019; 7(1): 10-17.

15. Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone beam CT and how does it work? Dental Clinics of North Amer-ica 2020; 64(2): 175-190.

16. Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: Assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dental Clinics of North America 2015; 60(4): 659-676.

17. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, Collaert B, Theodorakou C, Rogers J, Walker A, Jacobs R. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. European Journal of Radiology 2015; 84(12): 2581-2592.

18. Rodrigues M, Jacobs R, Bosmans H, Willems G. CBCT in dental medicine: A comprehensive review of guidelines and clinical applications. Clinical Oral Investigations 2021; 25(3): 1115-1132.

19. Patel S, Brown J, Pimentel T, Kelly RD, Abella F, Durack C. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics–a review. International Endodontic Journal 2020; 53(11): 1516-1522.

Additional Files

Published

2025-04-07

Issue

Vol. 129 No. 1 (2025): The Medical-Surgical Journal

Section

DENTAL MEDICINE

License

Copyright (c) 2025 The Medical-Surgical Journal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

COPYRIGHT 
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.

COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR 

REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /

THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI

We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.

  1. we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
  2. the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
  3. we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.

Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):

  1. ______________________________/_________________________
  2. ______________________________/_________________________
  3. ______________________________/_________________________

N.B.  All the authors must sign this form