ArticleBMC primary care2026
Periodontal knowledge and clinical attitudes of family physicians in Turkey: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodontitis is one of the most prevalent non-communicable chronic diseases globally, and its early recognition is critical for preventive healthcare. Primary care providers, particularly family physicians, occupy a strategically advantageous position for early detection of oral diseases and timely referral for professional dental care. The primary aim of this study was to explore whether differences exist in periodontal knowledge and clinical attitudes between certified family physicians (CFPs) and family medicine specialists/residents (FMSs) compared with dentists, with the latter serving as a professionally trained reference group.
methodsA descriptive, cross-sectional survey was conducted in Turkey between June and August 2020. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling via professional social media networks (WhatsApp and Facebook groups). A 42-item online questionnaire was distributed to dentists, CFPs, and FMSs via Google Forms. Of 818 initiated responses, 808 met the inclusion criteria (completion rate: 98.8%). Internal consistency for the knowledge domain was assessed using the Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20 = 0.74). Statistical analyses employed chi-square tests with Cramér’s V effect sizes, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, and professional experience, with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons (significance level p < 0.05).
resultsThe final cohort consisted of 377 dentists (46.7%), 227 CFPs (28.1%), and 204 FMSs (25.2%). Family physicians demonstrated significantly lower knowledge than dentists across all assessed domains (p < 0.001). The majority of family physicians (69.2% of CFPs, 71.6% of FMSs) erroneously identified toothache as a primary sign of periodontitis. Only 13.7% of CFPs and 13.2% of FMSs correctly identified all three drug classes associated with gingival enlargement, versus 63.1% of dentists. Awareness of adverse pregnancy outcomes linked to periodontitis was low among CFPs (52.5%) and FMSs (38.7%). Direct referral of suspected dental infections without prior antibiotic or antiseptic prescription was observed in only 24.2% of CFPs and 8.3% of FMSs. After adjustment for demographic confounders, professional group remained a significant independent predictor of knowledge outcomes (adjusted OR range: 0.04–0.38 for family physicians vs. dentists as reference; all p < 0.001), confirming that the observed differences were not attributable to age, sex, or experience.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that family physicians in Turkey may have notable gaps in periodontal knowledge across multiple domains. While these results should be interpreted with caution given the convenience sampling methodology and cross-sectional design, they are consistent with comparable international studies. Further research employing probability-based sampling and interventional designs is warranted to determine whether targeted educational initiatives could improve interdisciplinary oral–systemic care.
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.