Expert perspectives on precision dosing in dentistry

Recent studies suggest that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, which has direct implications for daily practice. According to consensus recommendations, variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups. When protocols are compared, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Contrary to earlier assumptions, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, although confirmatory data are still limited.

In multidisciplinary settings, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, with meaningful differences between subgroups. In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, pending validation in prospective studies. When protocols are compared, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, particularly in resource-constrained settings. In multidisciplinary settings, variability between operators remains a key limitation, pending validation in prospective studies. In multidisciplinary settings, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Across multiple cohorts, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, although confirmatory data are still limited. Emerging evidence indicates that cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Contrary to earlier assumptions, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, and this trend is expected to continue.