en Radiation Biology Radiation Biology مقاله مروری Review article <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="text-justify:newspaper"><span style="text-kashida-space:50%"><span style="line-height:119%"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Background:</span></span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Digital intraoral and panoramic radiography have significantly reduced patient radiation exposure; however, occupational exposure among dental practitioners in the digital era requires quantitative synthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate mean occupational radiation dose among dental professionals using digital 2D imaging systems and to explore heterogeneity sources. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Materials and Methods: </span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Five electronic databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2025 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Observational and experimental studies reporting quantitative occupational dose measurements (mSv/&micro;Sv) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E and ROB-2 tools. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I&sup2; statistics, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on practitioner type and imaging system. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Results: </span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Ten studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled correlation effect size was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06&ndash;0.54; p=0.004), with extremely high heterogeneity (I&sup2;=99.94%). Subgroup analysis showed dentists had a higher pooled mean dose estimate (0.91 mSv; 95% CI: &minus;0.01 to 1.82) compared to mixed dental staff (0.08 mSv; p=0.000 for subgroup difference). No significant differences were observed between handheld, panoramic, and mixed digital systems. Meta-regression demonstrated a weak but statistically significant association between mean dose and effect size (slope=0.02; p=0.050). </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Conclusion:</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US"> Occupational radiation exposure in digital dentistry remains substantially below international safety limits but demonstrates significant variability. Practitioner behaviour and workflow factors appear more influential than equipment type, reinforcing strict adherence to ALARA principles.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div> Radiation exposure, occupational exposure, dentists, digital radiography, panoramic radiography 839 849 http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-1584&slc_lang=en&sid=1 A. Kakti Ateet.kakti@riyadh.edu.sa 7900319475328460034450 7900319475328460034450 Yes Pediatric division, Preventive dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia