ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating general practitioner attitudes towards screening, risk assessment, and diagnosis of periodontal diseases and tooth wear in the UK.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
This study investigated UK general dental practitioners' habits and attitudes toward screening, risk assessment, and diagnosis of periodontal diseases and tooth wear in adult patients during routine examinations. Two primary recruiters, UK-based final year post-graduate students enrolled on the MSc in Aesthetic Dentistry at King's College London distributed a piloted, paper-based, 14-statement questionnaire via secondary recruiters to UK general dentists. The latter participants were based at local dental practices or attending post-graduate courses. The secondary recruiters circulated and collected the questionnaire from the participants on the same day of distribution. Responses were supplied in an anonymised manner, and returned to the primary recruiters, either physically or by the scanning of the responses. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests (Stata v12; significance at p < 0.05). Of 325 questionnaires distributed, 261 were satisfactorily completed, n = 261 (response rate: 80.3%). During an adult patient dental examination, high agreement was reported for periodontal risk assessment, probing, and diagnosis (≥ 88%). For the same appointment type, tooth wear risk assessments and clinical assessments were routinely performed by ≥ 81% of the sample, and 74% recorded tooth wear clinical diagnoses. While 98.5% used the Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE), only 29.8% regularly reported using a tooth wear index. The Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE) was the most used (22.9%), but 4.3 times less frequently than the BPE. Satisfaction with undergraduate training with assessment and diagnosis was 2.9 times higher for periodontal assessment than for tooth wear. Significant differences were observed in the use of indices for periodontal disease versus tooth wear. The findings of this study support the need for clearer guidelines and a universally accepted tooth wear index in general practice, alongside improved satisfaction with UK undergraduate training in tooth wear assessment and diagnosis.
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.