Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Dental Implants among Dental Interns in Saudi Arabia - A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: The aim of the study is to assess knowledge, attitude and practices of dental implants among dental interns in Saudi Arabia Materials and Methods: A self-designed, close-ended questionnaire was distributed among 205 interns chosen by stratified random sampling technique. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items pertaining to demographic characteristics, knowledge and practices of dental implants. Responses were coded and entered into spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel 16.0.) and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences ( SPSS, IBM Version 22.0) and contingency tables and chi-square test (chi(2)). Results: The majority of the participants were males (64.4%), between 24-26 years of age (64%) and had a GPA between 4-5 (63.4%). The majority of the participants gained knowledge of dental implants through theoretical lectures (98.5%), and most of them (80%) knew, what material, an implant was made up of. Almost all participants (91.7%) knew that dental implants had surface modifications. Most (64.4%) believed that case selection is the most important criteria for the success of dental implant therapy, and this differed significantly among participants with respect to GPA (p=0.03). Many participants (60%) believed that the most important advantage of dental implants over fixed prosthesis is that reduction of adjacent tooth is not needed, and this differed significantly between males and females (p=0.026). There was a significant difference (p<0.001) between males and females when it came to confidence in independently restoring teeth using dental implants. 63% of the participants were confident to use dental implants in their future practice. Conclusion: Knowledge of dental implants among dental interns is satisfactory, but this study reveals that participants lack practical experience and would like to acquire more clinical skills. Limitations: The response rate of participants from each university was low, which made comparisons between different universities difficult because sample size from some universities was very small, which could not produce statistically accurate results.