ArticleEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
A Cross-Sectional Survey of Final Year Dental Students' Opinions on Professionalism and Dental Board of Australia Tribunal Outcomes.
Article in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Final Year Dental Students' Opinions on Professionalism and Dental Board of Australia Tribunal Outcomes.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study of Postgraduate Orthodontic Students' Moral Reasoning Ability and Opinions on Professionalism and Dental Board of Australia Tribunal Outcomes.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudents undertaking clinical dental training in an educational program in Australia are required to be registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and are expected to conform with the professional standards described in the Dental Board of Australia's (DBA) Code of Conduct. The DBA can refer a dentist to a tribunal for alleged professional misconduct. The aim of the study was to survey Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students at the University of Adelaide (UofA) about their opinions on professionalism and DBA tribunal outcomes.
methodsSixty-six final year UofA BDS students were invited to participate in a three-part electronic survey. Part 1 concerned respondent demographics. Parts 2 and 3 requested responses to nine statements about professionalism and the outcomes of 10 'real life' DBA tribunal hearings.
resultsA response rate of 69.7% (n = 46) was recorded. Eight (17.4%) students were not aware of the DBA's Code of Conduct. Ten (26.3%) responded that being bound by the Code meant they could not fully value the student university experience. DBA outcomes regarding infringement of patient autonomy were considered lenient/very lenient by 59.1% (n = 26) and an outcome regarding an employment dispute harsh/very harsh by 54.5% (n = 24).
conclusionsThe students generally agreed with statements regarding professionalism. Variation in opinion about DBA outcomes was observed. Outcomes regarding infringement of patient autonomy and protection of the dentist title were considered harsh whereas outcomes not otherwise directly related to patient care were considered lenient.
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.