ArticleBMC oral health2026
Periodontitis awareness and knowledge levels among undergraduate dental students.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDental students, as future oral healthcare providers, play a vital role in promoting periodontal health and educating the public. A solid foundational understanding of periodontitis is therefore essential. This study assessed the level of comprehension of periodontitis among dental students at Chulalongkorn University and explored factors associated with their understanding.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to 425 undergraduate dental students. Responses to the open-ended question “What is periodontitis?” were qualitatively analyzed and tagged with keywords corresponding to major concepts in the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) (e.g., gingival inflammation, attachment loss). Answers were classified as “totally correct” (TC), “partially correct” (PC), or “incorrect” (IC). Subgroup analyses were performed using the Chi-square tests.
resultsAmong 425 valid responses, half of the students (50.2%) fell into the (PC) group, suggesting that many students possessed only a partial understanding of periodontitis. Clinical-year students demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of TC responses compared to pre-clinical students (p < 0.001). Mentions of attachment loss were more frequent among clinical students, consistent with greater emphasis on this core feature during clinical training. Academic year was significantly associated with correctness of responses (p < 0.001).
conclusionClinical-year students more frequently included both gingival inflammation and attachment loss in their definitions of periodontitis than pre-clinical students, while partially correct responses were common and incorrect responses occurred across academic years, particularly in earlier years. The observed variation across academic years suggests that continued emphasis on core periodontal concepts throughout the curriculum may support more consistent understanding among undergraduate dental students.
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.