ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
From Lab to Chairside: Dentists' Perception of Natural Nanomaterials and Smart Delivery Systems in Regenerative Dentistry.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical translation of natural nanomaterials and smart delivery systems in regenerative dentistry relies heavily on practitioner acceptance; however, end-user perspectives remain under-investigated.
objectiveThis study evaluated dental practitioners' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers regarding these innovations. The questionnaire examined stated intention and self-reported willingness, not clinical behaviour.
methodsA cross-sectional survey using convenience sampling was conducted among 713 Romanian dentists. Statistical analysis included Chi-square tests and odds ratio estimation to identify factors associated with willingness to adopt nano-formulations.
resultsSelf-reported familiarity was moderate, with only 19.1% of respondents describing themselves as "very familiar" with nanodentistry; nevertheless, 77.3% believed natural nano-formulations could match synthetic efficacy. High costs (36.5%), lack of long-term evidence (35.9%), and staining concerns (46.0%) were identified as primary perceived barriers. Experience with digital technologies (CAD/CAM) was significantly associated with a positive attitude toward adoption (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.41-2.98,
conclusionsRespondents demonstrated a generally positive attitude toward integrating bioactive nanomaterials, though widespread adoption is currently limited by economic, educational, and evidentiary gaps. Future strategies should focus on establishing clear clinical protocols, providing robust long-term safety data, and improving the aesthetic stability of natural biomaterials.
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.