Teledentistry—Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes of Dental Practitioners in Saudi Arabia: A Nationwide Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present survey assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of teledentistry (TD) among dental practitioners in Saudi Arabia. This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted with dental interns and practicing dentists in Saudi Arabia. An online questionnaire was sent to all potential respondents. Questions related to knowledge, practice, attitudes, and training regarding TD were presented. A total of 603 (227 dental interns, 376 practicing dentists) completed the questionnaire. Generally, the participants revealed poor knowledge and practice of TD, with only 38% having heard about TD and only one-quarter of the sample (23.2%) reporting practicing TD at their current workplace. However, most of the participants expressed positive attitudes and a willingness to practice TD in the future. Specialists and those in practice for >5 years showed significantly better knowledge and practice of TD than general dentists and those with lesser clinical experience (p < 0.01). While only one-fifth of the participants (20.2%) reported having attended a workshop/lecture about TD, the majority (69.7%) felt that they needed training on TD. The results revealed poor knowledge, practice, and training with regard to TD among practicing dentists in Saudi Arabia. However, the positive attitude expressed by most of the participants towards practicing TD in the future is an encouraging sign for dental educators and planners of oral health care. Continuous education through periodic workshops and training courses on TD is crucial to improve dentists’ knowledge, practice, and attitudes towards TD. Integration of TD topics into undergraduate/postgraduate curricula is highly recommended. Special attention should be directed to training general dental practitioners and junior dentists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".