Accurate classification of aortic dissection is essential for guiding clinical treatment and facilitating communication between radiologists and clinicians. Traditional classifications, such as the DeBakey and Stanford systems, categorize dissections according to their origin and extent, or by involvement of the ascending aorta. The Stanford classification has gained widespread use due to its clear correlation with the surgical and medical treatments available at the time. However, these traditional classifications provide limited guidance for contemporary management, particularly in the era of endovascular and hybrid surgical techniques for aortic repair. Modern classifications, such as the Type/Entry/Malperfusion (TEM) system and Type B dissection reporting standards proposed by the Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/ STS), incorporate more detailed anatomic and clinical descriptors. The TEM system expands upon the Stanford classification by adding a “non-A non-B” category for arch dissections and incorporating entry tear and malperfusion descriptors. The SVS/STS classification introduces a zone-based model that defines the dissection type by the location and extent of the entry tear.Contemporary guidelines have identified several high-risk imaging features that predict poor outcomes in otherwise uncomplicated dissections. This pictorial review compares these classifications and highlights their implications for radiologic reporting, emphasizing how detailed anatomic and risk-based descriptors better align radiologic interpretations with contemporary management strategies.