ArticlePloS one2026
Ocular injury awareness, knowledge, and safety practices among dental professionals, students, and supporting staff: A cross-sectional analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOcular health is important in dentistry because the profession relies on visual acuity and has a high risk of splatter, aerosols, and projectiles. There is a great deal of promotion with respect to personal protective equipment (PPE), but little is known about how the awareness is turned into protective behaviour in dental practice in Indian contexts.
objectiveTo assess the extent of knowledge, awareness, and clinical practices related to ocular safety among dental professionals, students, and auxiliary staff in India, and to identify significant discrepancies between their theoretical knowledge and practical implementation. METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 512 dental professionals across various institutions in India by using a 27-item questionnaire that was diligently piloted and validated. The questionnaire serves to assess self-reported awareness, the incidence of ocular injuries, and patterns of eye protection for both clinicians and their patients.
resultsAlthough 86.1% of respondents reported being familiar with eye safety regulations, 62.5% reported eye injuries during clinical procedures, mainly as a result of spatter, aerosol, and removing restorations, which doesn't suggest lack of protection but lack of protective eyewear. Responsive to the conditions mentioned, only 42.6% were compliant overall and consistent in wearing protective eyewear, while 93.6% report acknowledging the need for protective eyewear. Additionally, 13.3% had observed ocular injuries in patients, and 38.35% admitted to not providing eye protection during procedures.
conclusionThere is a significant differential between the high awareness and poor uptake of ocular safety practices in Indian dentistry. This requires enhancing policy in institutions, introducing ocular protection in dental education and establishing standard procedures. Reducing preventable injuries and ensuring the safety of patients and practitioners is justified.
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.