ArticleBMC oral health2026
Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes toward oral irrigator use among dentists and dental students: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterdental plaque control is critically important in maintaining oral hygiene. Oral irrigators (also known as water flossers) are recommended as an alternative oral hygiene tool, especially for individuals who have difficulty using traditional dental floss. Although numerous studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of oral irrigators in the literature, studies examining the knowledge level, awareness, and clinical attitudes of dentists and dental students towards these devices are limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate knowledge, awareness, and attitudes regarding the use of oral irrigators and to examine the effect of education and clinical experience levels on these approaches.
methodsA total of 421 participants were included in the study: third-year dental students (n = 100), intern dentists (n = 179), general practitioners (n = 66), and specialist dentists (n = 75). A structured questionnaire consisting of 16 questions was administered to assess knowledge, awareness, and attitudes regarding oral irrigator use. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests and Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc analyses; the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
results82.9% of participants reported having knowledge about oral irrigators. It was found that specialist and general practitioners had significantly higher knowledge levels regarding the periodontal effects of oral irrigators compared to students and interns (p < 0.001). 70.2% of participants rated oral irrigators as “effective” or “very effective”. While the rate of regular use was 9.0%, cost (58.0%) was identified as the primary barrier, whereas difficulty of use was reported by only a small proportion of participants (4.8%) (p < 0.001). Only 28.9% of participants stated that they had received adequate training about oral irrigators. The rate of specialist dentists recommending oral irrigators to their patients was significantly higher (61%) compared to other groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionThis study reveals that knowledge, awareness, and attitudes towards oral irrigator use differ significantly depending on the level of education and clinical experience. While general awareness is high, significant gaps exist in terms of detailed knowledge, personal use, and curriculum adequacy. To effectively integrate oral irrigators into preventive dentistry practices, it is recommended that evidence-based and structured training on these devices be strengthened in dental education programs.
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.