Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to tooth morphology among dental students and dental technician students

Abstract

Objectives: Students are introduced to the morphological features of primary and permanent human dentition in a dental anatomy course, which is a part of the basic core sciences program in the Department of Dentistry and Dental Prosthesis Technology. The purpose of this study was to compare dental students’ (DSs’) and dental technician students’ (DTSs’) knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to dental morphology. Materials and Methods: Using a 26-item self-administered questionnaire, the DSs and DTSs participated in a descriptive cross-sectional study. Three components made up the questionnaire: four items for demographic profile, ten items for dental morphology knowledge level, seven items for attitude toward tooth morphology, and five items for practice in tooth morphology. There were 274 student answers in all. The data were analyzed using an independent t test and one-way ANOVA. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance for each test. Results: Between DSs and DTSs, there was a statistically significant difference in their knowledge and practices of tooth morphology (p<0.001). However, DTSs knowledge of dental morphology was significantly greater, and DSs practice scores were significantly greater. There was no significant difference in the attitude of tooth morphology between the two groups (p=0.379). Both groups had low levels of dental morphology knowledge, with an average of 3.86 correct answers for DTSs and an average of 3.16 correct answers for DSs. In the DSs group, first-year students had a greater knowledge level (4.22±1.63 correct answers) than did the other students. Conclusions: Knowing the variations in dental morphology knowledge, attitudes, and practices between a dentist and dental technician may help us take preventative measures. While preclinical dentistry students and dental technician students had different levels of expertise, both groups were less knowledgeable about tooth morphology. Both groups had similarly high attitudes toward tooth morphology.