ArticleBMC oral health2026
Knowledge, practice and attitude of undergraduate students in clinical years regarding advanced endodontic instruments.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude, and clinical practices of undergraduate dental students in their clinical years about the use of advanced endodontic instruments. A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was executed over six months among all 220 undergraduate dental students from three dental colleges in Saudi Arabia: King Saud University, Imam Abdurrahman University, and King Faisal University. Information was gathered using a pre-validated, self-administered questionnaire that included sections on demographics, knowledge, clinical practices, and attitudes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23. The chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were applied to explore the influence of gender and the clinical years on the knowledge, attitude and practices. A p-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. Among 220 respondents, 156 (70.9%) were male, with most in the sixth year (30.9%) and from King Saud University (40.0%). Knowledge of rotary instruments was moderate; 137 (62.3%) correctly identified the effect of increased pitch, with significant improvement across academic years (p = 0.005). Awareness of reduced fracture risk also increased significantly (p = 0.002). Knowledge of electronic apex locators was high, with 193 (87.7%) correctly identifying the need to remove metallic restorations, showing significant improvement with academic year (p < 0.001). Attitudes were predominantly positive, as 158 (71.8%) strongly agreed that combined use of rotary files and EALs reduces chair time, with positivity increasing significantly across academic years (p = 0.031). This study concluded that knowledge, clinical practice, and positive attitudes toward rotary endodontic files and electronic apex locators improved significantly with increasing academic year. Senior students and interns showed greater understanding, higher clinical exposure, and more favorable perceptions of the effectiveness and convenience of these technologies.
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.