Purpose To determine in which clinical situations it is indicated or contra-indicated to prescribe cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for paediatric patients. Methods Systematic review of in vivo paediatric research studies of diagnostic efficacy using CBCT, with supplementary searches for guideline documents on CBCT and for systematic reviews permitting inclusion of ex vivo and adult studies. Results After screening, 190 publications were included, mostly case studies. No systematic reviews were found of in vivo paediatric research. Fourteen studies of diagnostic efficacy were identified. The supplementary searches found 18 guideline documents relevant to the review and 26 systematic reviews. The diagnostic efficacy evidence on CBCT was diverse and often of limited quality. There was ex vivo evidence for diagnostic accuracy being greater using CBCT than radiographs for root fractures. The multiplanar capabilities of CBCT are advantageous when localising dental structures for surgical planning. Patient movement during scanning is more common in children which could reduce diagnostic efficacy. Conclusions No strong recommendations on CBCT are possible, except that it should not be used as a primary diagnostic tool for caries. Guidelines on use of CBCT in the paediatric age group should be developed cautiously, taking into account the greater radiation risk and the higher economic costs compared with radiography. CBCT should only be used when adequate conventional radiographic examination has not answered the question for which imaging was required. Clinical research in paediatric patients is required at the higher levels of diagnostic efficacy of CBCT.

Introduction Clinical competence is the backbone of competence‐based dental education. Over time, there has been a paradigm shift toward training students who are capable of independent practice, as opposed to mere academic success. Methods A mixed‐method study was undertaken by anonymised email questionnaire to all restorative tutors at the UK Dental School. Demographics and teaching experience were ascertained, along with key questions on the utilisation of online assessment software iDentity. The assessment process for tutors was explored, and barriers experienced when grading students were reported. Results The questionnaire was sent to all 51 restorative tutors with a response rate of 59% (n = 30). Only 3.5% of tutors provided verbal feedback and grading to students in person, with 20.7% only completing iDentity gradings following an email reminder. The majority of staff (93.3%) felt comfortable in raising concerns; however, one of the three clinical tutors admitted they had allowed a failing student to a pass. Qualitative analysis demonstrated several themes why tutors were reluctant to fail students: maintaining good relationships, limited supervision, time delay of grading, one‐off event and the student's first attempt. Conclusions Grading students as competent as a one‐off experience could potentially mask a recurring problem with a student, in turn impacting the student's ability to assess their own weakness and believe themselves to be competent, and potentially be overconfident. Fair and accurate assessment has a significant benefit to student and staff, enabling targeted development to motivate the students and improve the quality of care provided to the patients.