ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Evaluation of Attitude and Knowledge of Endodontic, Pedodontic and SBARD Residents in Saudi Arabia toward Regenerative Endodontics-A National Survey.
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of virtual simulation for regenerative endodontic training: randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Clinician Decision-Making for the Endodontic Treatment of Immature Permanent Teeth: A National Survey of Pediatric Dentists and Endodontists.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- A survey on awareness and knowledge among dentist practicing regenerative endodontics towards current regenerative endodontic protocols and the scaffolds used in regenerative dentistry.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: There are no guidelines on the regenerative endodontic procedures that should be followed in dental treatment. Thus, it is essential to learn the knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about regenerative endodontics among dental practitioners, particularly endodontists, as they are the first providers of this type of dental treatment. Aim: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes among residents of the Saudi Board of Advanced Restorative Dentistry (SBARD) in Saudi Arabia. Methods & Materials: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 128 residents of endodontics, pedodontics, and the SBARD in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed to participants using the available electronic measures such as emails and social media. The questionnaire was made by Google Forms, and responses were received directly in the excel sheet in the email. The data were exported as an excel file, coded, and analyzed, and the p-value < 0.05 was set as significant. Results: More than 50% (74 dentists) of the participants reported receiving continuing education in regenerative treatment, with a significant difference found among specialty (p = 0.023). No significant association was found between knowledge, gender, and type of postgraduate study. The vast majority (89.1%) of the participants believed regenerative endodontics should be incorporated into dentistry curricula. About two-thirds (78.2%) of the participants declared their ability to attend future training courses in a regenerative endodontic, whereas 10.9% did not, and 10.9% were unsure. Conclusions: The dental practitioners were enthusiastic and interested in regenerative and stem cell treatment. The results also suggested incorporating regenerative treatment into the dental curriculum and signaled the need for more continued training courses.
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.