ArticleBMC medical education2026
An audit of endodontic diagnostic documentation compliance among undergraduate dental students in a UK primary care-based dental school.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErroneous pulpal and periapical diagnoses can lead to inappropriate treatment planning, unnecessary procedures, and compromised patient outcomes. While undergraduate endodontic education emphasises history taking, clinical testing and radiographic assessment, less is known about how consistently students document diagnostic conclusions in clinical records.
aimTo evaluate the completeness and compliance of endodontic diagnostic documentation among undergraduate dental students, benchmarked against British Endodontic Society (BES) and European Society of Endodontology (ESE) standards, and to explore trends across different stages of training.
methodsRecords of 196 root canal treatments completed by Year 3–5 Bachelor of Dental Surgery students (2022–2024) were reviewed. Audit standards were based on the British Endodontic Society Guide to Good Endodontic Practice (2022) and United Kingdom record-keeping guidance. Parameters included history-taking, sensibility testing, radiographic justification and reporting, and documentation of provisional and definitive diagnoses. Compliance was analysed descriptively, with limited inferential comparison where appropriate.
resultsCompliance with core record keeping elements was high across all cohorts. Documentation of diagnostic conclusions and signs and symptoms varied across student groups and academic years. Provisional diagnoses were recorded in 12.37% of cases overall, whereas definitive diagnoses were documented in 66.31%, with the highest compliance observed in Year 5. Documentation of signs and symptoms was 65.83% in 2022–2023, increasing to 67.76% in 2023–2024.
conclusionsUndergraduate dental students consistently document clinical findings relevant to endodontic diagnosis; however, explicit recording of diagnostic conclusions, particularly provisional diagnoses, and documentation of signs and symptoms remain inconsistent. Strengthening educational emphasis on documenting diagnostic reasoning may support preparedness for independent practice.
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.