AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightResults: Overall, 62.3% of participants reported familiarity with 3D printing technology, whereas 79.3% had not received any formal training on this subject.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Aims: In recent years, three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has rapidly advanced in dentistry; however, whether barriers to its adoption are primarily related to financial constraints or insufficient self-reported familiarity remains unclear. Therefore, this cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey aimed to evaluate dentists’ self-reported familiarity, attitudes, and clinical practice patterns regarding 3D printing technology and its applications in dentistry. Therefore, this cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey aimed to evaluate dentists’ self-reported familiarity, attitudes, and clinical practice patterns regarding 3D printing technology in dentistry. Methods: A total of 300 dentists were recruited using a non-probability convenience sampling method from university hospitals, oral and dental health centers, and private clinics in the Diyarbakır region. All participants completed the questionnaire in full, and all 300 responses were included in the final analysis. Participants’ self-reported familiarity, attitudes, and clinical practice patterns regarding 3D printing technologies, materials, applications, and clinical use were assessed using an online questionnaire comprising 19 questions: 5 descriptive questions and 14 closed-ended questions specifically addressing 3D printing technology (Google Forms; Alphabet Inc., USA). The collected data were analyzed using the Pearson Chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Results: Overall, 62.3% of participants reported familiarity with 3D printing technology, whereas 79.3% had not received any formal training on this subject. Only 10.3% of participants reported using 3D printing technology in their clinical practice. Equipment cost was identified as the most significant disadvantage by 50.3% of participants. Statistically significant differences were observed according to demographic and professional variables in terms of self-reported familiarity and clinical use of 3D printing technologies (p<0.05). Conclusion: Among dentists in the Diyarbakır region, a greater proportion reported familiarity with 3D printing than formal training or active clinical use. Most participants supported the inclusion of 3D printing in the dental curriculum, indicating perceived educational relevance within this sample. These findings should be interpreted within the context of the regional convenience sample investigated in the present study.