RADIATION CONTROL AND SAFETY IN DENTISTRY: HOW IT DIFFERS FROM THE MEDICAL RADIOLOGY SETTING

Background: Radiation control and safety practices differ substantially between dentistry and medical radiology, despite both disciplines relying on the same underlying physics of ionising radiation and sharing common international frameworks. Objective: To review current evidence characterising the differences between dental and medical radiation protection, focusing on dose magnitude, optimisation philosophy, patient shielding practice, occupational monitoring, and regulatory governance, with particular reference to the South African setting. 
Methodology: A narrative literature review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and publications of the International Atomic Energy Agency, International Commission on Radiological Protection, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority. 
Major findings: Dental radiographic examinations (intraoral, panoramic, and cone-beam computed tomography) deliver effective doses that are one to three orders of magnitude lower than typical medical computed tomography and interventional fluoroscopic procedures. This dose differential has driven a divergence in protection philosophy: dentistry has progressively moved away from routine patient lead-apron and thyroid-collar shielding in favour of beam collimation and exposure optimisation, whereas medical radiology retains shielding, dedicated medical physics support, and structured occupational dosimetry, particularly for computed tomography and interventional personnel. Regulatory oversight in South Africa is unified under the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973, and administered by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, but licensing structures, quality-control obligations and access to qualified experts differ markedly between solo dental practice and hospital-based medical radiology departments. 

Conclusion: Although dentistry and medicine share the As Low As Reasonably Achievable/As Low As Diagnostically Acceptable optimisation principle, the low-dose, high-frequency nature of dental imaging justifies protection strategies distinct from those of medical radiology. Continued education of dental practitioners on these evolving, discipline-specific standards remains a priority, particularly in resource-constrained settings.