ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Dentists' awareness of data security and ethical issues during the transition to artificial intelligence-driven clinical practice.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the awareness levels of actively practicing dentists in Türkiye regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-related ethical issues, data security, anonymization, and legal regulations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional online survey (Google Forms) used a 12-item questionnaire (4 demographics; 8 awareness domains) rated on a five-point Likert scale. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests, and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests were applied (p < 0.05).
resultsA total of 257 dentists participated. Mean domain scores ranged from 2.97 to 3.13; awareness of ethical issues was highest (3.13 ± 1.44) and perception of encryption lowest (2.97 ± 1.45). No significant gender differences were observed. University hospital dentists reported significantly higher awareness of ethical issues and a greater perceived need for anonymization than other institution types (p < 0.05). For awareness of Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK), scores were higher in university hospitals and private dental polyclinics than in private practices and public hospitals (p < 0.05). Professional experience was associated with differences in perception of encryption, awareness of personal data protection law, awareness of ethical issues, and perceived AI ethical risks (p < 0.05); perception of data security and awareness of big data security did not differ significantly (p > 0.05).
conclusionDentists demonstrated varying levels of awareness across domains, with higher awareness reported in academic settings. Experience-related patterns differed by domain, indicating the need for focused educational strategies addressing legal and ethical aspects of AI-supported dental practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.