ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of dental students' awareness about intraoral scanners.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are a few studies evaluating dental students' knowledge and awareness of intraoral scanners. This study aims to evaluate and compare the knowledge and awareness of levels 3rd, 4th, and 5th-grade dental students regarding intraoral scanners and their use in orthodontics.
methodsA survey adapted from similar studies was administered to a total of 278 volunteer undergraduate students [comprising 3rd (n = 94), 4th (n = 88), and 5th-grade (n = 96)] to assess their awareness of intraoral scanners. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to analyze the variables within the scope of the study. The Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test was employed to compare responses across different academic years. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsOf the participants, 33.81% were 3rd-grade, 31.65% were 4th-grade, and 34.53% were 5th-grade dental students. There was no significant difference in the distribution of participants across academic grades (p > 0.05). Among the students, 96.81% of the 3rd-grade, 89.77% of the 4th-grade, and 83.33% of the 5th-grade students reported that they had never used an intraoral scanner (p < 0,05). A higher proportion of 3rd-grade students (71.28%) believed that IOSs were used in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions and the fabrication of maxillary expansion appliances, compared to the other grade groups. In contrast, 5th-grade students more frequently associated IOS usage with indirect bonding procedures (63.54%) (p < 0.05).
conclusionStudents in the 4th and 5th grades demonstrated a greater level of knowledge compared to 3rd-grade students. It is recommended that practical training opportunities be expanded and the dental curriculum be revised accordingly to support hands-on experience with intraoral scanners.
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.