Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) amounts to an excellent diagnostic tool to evaluate the peri-implant bone thickness in all dimensions. Despite the unquestionable advantages of CBCT, potential artifacts around dental implants might disturb the proper assessment of the surrounding structures. The artifacts may mask osseointegration, shallow bone defects, and other types of radiolucency, which make it difficult to establish an early diagnosis of bone loss. Proper diagnosis of bone defect is necessary to decide about surgical intervention. The aim of this literature review is to assess the CBCT exposure causing artifacts on the peri-implant structures. An electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed) database includes studies published before July 2021 and supplemented by manual research. Clinical, ex vivo, in vitro, and animal studies evaluating the relationship between exposition parameters and occurrence of artifacts around the dental implant in CBCT studies were included. A literature review revealed that kilovoltage, tube current, and field of view may affect the occurrence of artifacts around dental implants, all of which would compromise radiological evaluation. Therefore, it is feasible to reduce the incidence of artifacts and improve the image quality by appropriate modification of the exposure parameters. However, the reduction of artifacts is often associated with a significant increase in radiation exposure; hence, an effort should be made to minimize the radiation dose in line with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle.

Background: Gorlin–Goltz syndrome (GGS), also known as basal cell nevus syndrome or nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, is a rare genetic disorder caused by mutations in the PTCH1, PTCH2, or SUFU genes, leading to an increased risk of neoplasms. Craniofacial anomalies are among the most common features of GGS. This paper aimed to highlight the similarities and differences in clinical presentation across different ages and to emphasize the importance of including all family members in the diagnostic process. The diagnosis can often be initiated by a dentist through routine radiographic imaging. Case Presentation: We present a 17-year longitudinal follow-up of a male patient with recurrent multiple odontogenic keratocysts and other manifestations consistent with GGS. Nearly 20 years later, the patient’s mother presented with similar clinical features suggestive of GGS. Diagnostic imaging, including contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), cone-beam CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and orthopantomography, was performed, and the diagnosis was confirmed through genetic testing. Interdisciplinary management included age-appropriate surgical and dermatological treatments tailored to lesion severity. Conclusions: Given the frequent involvement of the stomatognathic system in GGS, dentists play a critical role in early detection and referral. Comprehensive family-based screening is essential for timely diagnosis, improved monitoring, and effective management of this multisystem disorder.