Response: Great question! Generalized to healthcare providers at large, the inquiry can be expanded to include the potential risks associated with the use of any diagnostic equipment that yields information exceeding the training and experience of the provider employing that equipment. We have seen more than a few instances in which a provider has been criticized for using diagnostic technology but fell short of appreciating the significance of “something out-of-the-ordinary.” Or more troublesome, the provider notes something “odd” but does not follow through with appropriate proactive measures (such as alerting the patient, obtaining a radiologist’s review or referring the patient for a second opinion with a primary care physician or medical specialist).   From a liability perspective, the generally held position is: if you use the technology, you bear the responsibility for the results, whether or not you understand the significance of the findings.   How does the provider handle this additional responsibility?   Let’s return to our dental insured’s issue.  Until recently, the consideration for using cone beam CT (CBCT) technology for most dental practices was prohibited by cost.  In the last few years, however, the cost of such equipment has become more reasonable, making acquisition a more practical consideration.    CBCT equipment is being marketed to general dentists and dental specialties, highlighting features that make the technology appealing to dental providers.  Fitting into an area requiring little additional space than current Panorex equipment, filming can be accomplished in 20-40 seconds with greater detail than two-dimensional films (where distortion, overlap and other limitations may inhibit the dentist’s ability to view the patient’s dental condition with the clarity necessary to achieve optimal results with the proposed treatment or procedure).  CBCT is useful to oral surgeons, orthodontists and other dental specialists, as well as general dentists, particularly when performing implants and those procedures where the better the quality picture of the patient’s anatomical structures, the more precise the treatment approach can be.    If the acquisition cost is acceptable, and the three-dimensional results are superior to two-dimensional film technology currently being used, why not make the investment and complement or enhance your diagnostic and treatment capabilities?   But here is where the benefits clash with a potential down side. Greater diagnostic capability is accompanied by greater responsibility for the findings, whatever and wherever these findings may appear. As an example: a full field of view (as opposed to a standard or medium field) may encompass more than the oral cavity and capture other areas of the patient’s anatomy (such as portions of the brain, neck and throat).  Whether the provider observes something suspicious (such as a shadow) and does nothing further because the anomaly falls outside the purview of the specialty, or the provider fails to appreciate the potentially adverse significance for that anomaly (suggesting a referral to a specialist), the generally held view is that the provider is responsible for what the film captured.  In other words, if you use diagnostic equipment, you are responsible for the information that the equipment provides.   Should this potential risk exposure deter you from implementing the new technology in your practice? There is no pat answer.  But there are simple steps you can follow to protect you from a potential allegation of a missed diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis associated with the use of advanced technology. These steps need not be time-consuming and may occur simultaneously. Using any kind of advanced technology, consider incorporating the following with respect to:   Patient Accountability Regard your patient as a responsible, engaged member of the treatment team. Findings abound in research literature positively correlating patient accountability and a team approach to decision-making with more successful outcomes, due largely to patient adherence to treatment and follow-up.  As is true for any patient encounter, communication is an important component of a healthy, productive and satisfying patient-provider relationship.