Background: Teledentistry constitutes a key component of digital health, enabling remote oral healthcare delivery through information and communication technologies (ICT). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated its global adoption; however, data regarding its implementation within Romanian dental practice remain limited. Understanding usage patterns, perceived benefits, and implementation barriers is essential for effective integration. Objectives: This study examined the adoption of teledentistry among dental practitioners in Sibiu County, Romania, identified its main applications, assessed professional perceptions, and explored barriers and their interrelations using association rule mining (ARM). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed in 2025 to all 630 registered dentists in Sibiu County. The questionnaire collected demographic data, usage patterns, perceived benefits, and barriers. A total of 197 valid responses were obtained (response rate: 31.2%). Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and ARM were used to identify associations between usage contexts and recorded obstacles. Results: Overall, 44.6% of respondents reported using teledentistry tools, primarily for interdisciplinary consultations (29.4%), postoperative counseling (26.4%), and treatment monitoring (25.3%). The most frequently cited barriers were the inability to perform direct clinical examinations (71.5%), practitioner reluctance (37.1%), insufficient infrastructure (29.9%), and the lack of a clear legislative framework (27.4%). ARM revealed frequent co-occurrence patterns among these barriers. Practitioners with prior experience in teledentistry reported significantly higher perceived utility (58% vs. 22.1%) and greater interest in training (58% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Teledentistry shows moderate but increasing adoption among Romanian dentists. Addressing current barriers, through legislative clarification, infrastructure development, targeted professional training, and public education, is essential for achieving sustainable integration into modern dental practice.

Most meta-analyses report less external apical root resorption (EARR) with clear aligners (CAs) than fixed appliances (FAs), but pooled differences are sub-millimetric and rest on few recurring studies. This scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) mapped how 2020–2026 evidence on CA–FA comparisons, treatment-related factors and imaging modalities was generated, and checked data consistency, without pooling. Its unregistered protocol (version 1.0) was reconstructed during manuscript preparation. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched; paired reviewers screened 1688 records and 263 full texts and included 176 reports (174 studies). Fifteen reports, including eight of 32 direct-comparison reports, were excluded because outcome data were not attributable to a distinct sample or not identifiable; in one, pooled by six syntheses, aligner values equal another study’s fixed-appliance values. Of 21 included comparisons, 17 had serious or high risk of bias, one accounted for clustering and three reported measurement error in millimetres; differences were 0.01–1.12 mm except in one. Fifteen of 17 studies not described as randomised reported less EARR with CAs; the only concealed-allocation trial of appliances alone found no difference. Two imaging comparisons disagreed on whether panoramic radiography under- or overestimates EARR. Differences should be judged against measurement error and design, and data consistency should be checked before pooling.