ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2018
Examining the perceived versus the actual knowledge about forensic odontology: A cross-sectional survey among dentists.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploration of the usage of dental composite resin and the perception of its potential implications in forensic odontology among Lebanese dentists.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Forensic Odontology related awareness, knowledge and attitude among dentist and dental students in two Egyptian Universities: A survey-based study.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2024Article
- Article
- Preparedness toward participation in disaster management: An online survey among dental practitioners in a disaster-prone region of Eastern India.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Article
- Connecting forensic odontology among medical practitioners in central Kerala - An original study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
- Examining the perceived versus the actual knowledge about forensic odontology: A cross-sectional survey among dentists.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dentists should have the basic essential skills and knowledge about forensic odontology, to better collaborate with law enforcement and investigations. The objective of this survey was to assess the perceived and actual knowledge toward forensic odontology among dentists and to question their willingness to attend training courses on this specialty. A cross-sectional survey based on a self-administered questionnaire was conducted in various districts of Saudi Arabia. Four hundred dentists responded to a questionnaire that tested their actual knowledge of forensic odontology based on answering 15 statements using the alternatives correct, incorrect, do not know. The perceived knowledge was registered as strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree, then assigned scores respectively from four to zero. A willingness to attend a training course in the future was recorded by (yes/no). Scores were summated then subjected to descriptive statistics and regression analyses. Responses were received from 360 study participants (89% response rate). The percentage of correct answers, that is, the actual knowledge, was 67.9 (standard deviation [
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.