From theory to clinical practice: a single-centre cross-sectional analysis of dental students’ knowledge of contemporary endodontic materials and techniques

This study aimed to evaluate undergraduate dental students’ knowledge of contemporary endodontic materials and techniques and to investigate its association with year of study and clinical case experience. This single-centre descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among all fourth- and fifth-year dental students ( N = 260) at one dental faculty. A structured 20-item questionnaire, including demographic data, clinical experience and 13 knowledge items, was developed by the authors, reviewed by four endodontic specialists to assess content validity and pilot-tested before data collection. Item difficulty indices and internal consistency (KR-20) were calculated. Descriptive statistics were computed, and group comparisons were performed using Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Pearson’s chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests, with effect sizes reported for significant findings. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of the total knowledge score. Of the 260 eligible students, 214 participated (response rate: 82.3%). The mean total knowledge score was 7.98 ± 3.10 out of 13. Correct response rates were highest for questions on rubber dam use and the dental operating microscope, whereas knowledge of bioceramic sealers and the distinction between Biodentine and MTA was limited. Fifth-year students achieved significantly higher knowledge scores than fourth-year students (8.61 ± 3.02 vs. 7.60 ± 3.10; p = 0.006). Knowledge scores also differed according to the number of completed endodontic cases ( p < 0.001). However, because year of study and clinical case experience substantially overlapped in this cohort, the independent effect of clinical experience could not be determined. Undergraduate dental students demonstrated variable knowledge of contemporary endodontic materials and techniques. Because year of study and clinical experience could not be separated in this cross-sectional sample, the observed differences should be interpreted as reflecting overall educational progression rather than clinical experience alone. Greater integration of contemporary endodontic materials and techniques into undergraduate curricula may better prepare students for clinical practice.