Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly entering dental education and clinical practice, yet data on how dental professionals in the Middle East perceive it are scarce. This study assessed the awareness, attitudes, and perceived barriers toward AI among dental professionals in Kuwait, and compared responses across specialty, work sector, place of training, and experience, in order to inform regional education and adoption strategies. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of 27 items across five domains (demographics, knowledge and awareness, clinical practice, attitudes, and barriers and concerns) was distributed to dental care providers practicing in Kuwait’s government, private, and academic sectors between January 2024 and January 2025. An investigator-defined composite “belief” score (range 0–9), calculated as the sum of affirmative responses to nine attitude and expectation items (Kuder–Richardson 20 = 0.79), was categorized a priori as low (0–4), moderate (5–7), or high (8–9). This score was constructed for the present study to summarize overall positive orientation toward AI and is not a previously validated instrument. Categorical data were compared using the chi-square or Fisher exact test, and ordinal logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher belief-score category. Results: A total of 321 dental professionals accessed the survey, and 300 with complete belief-score data formed the analytic sample. Just over half were aware of AI tools designed for dentistry (56.3%), yet exposure was limited: only 38.7% had attended an AI-related lecture, workshop, or webinar, 29.0% had read AI research, and 15.7% had used AI-assisted tools, while 94.0% were interested in AI training and 92.0% were open to adopting AI if beneficial. Among the 292 respondents who answered the multiple-response barrier item, the most frequently reported barriers were a lack of training and expertise (71.2%), technical challenges (63.4%), and cost (56.5%); these did not differ significantly across work sector or specialty. High composite beliefs were more common among male than female respondents (44.1% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.003), and in ordinal regression male gender (estimate = 0.736, p = 0.004), general dentistry (estimate = 0.924, p = 0.003), and prosthodontics (estimate = 1.120, p = 0.003) independently predicted higher beliefs (model χ² = 25.56, df = 9, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Dental professionals in Kuwait show high enthusiasm for AI but limited training and hands-on exposure, and a lack of training and expertise was the leading perceived barrier (71.2% of the 292 respondents answering this item) across all sectors and specialties. Targeted, hands-on AI training and the integration of AI content into dental curricula are needed to support effective and responsible adoption in Kuwait.

Background: This pilot clinical study aimed to evaluate the mandibular position at the maximum intercuspal position (MIP) obtained with a virtual interocclusal record using an intraoral scanner across different dental chair backrest inclinations, in order to establish a protocol for future larger studies. Methods: In this single-center pilot study, 10 fully dentate participants underwent maxillary and mandibular full-arch intraoral scans. Virtual interocclusal records at MIP were obtained with an intraoral scanner at three dental chair backrest inclinations (90, 120, and 180 degrees). Conventional vinyl polysiloxane interocclusal records were made at the same inclinations. All scans were printed into physical models and mounted using the conventional records. Digitized casts and intraoral scans were superimposed onto a single common reference, the virtually mounted 90-degree scan, using metrology software. Because all deviations were expressed relative to that reference, the virtual 90-degree condition is zero by construction and was excluded as a data level from inferential models. Separate linear mixed-effects models were fitted for each translation and rotation axis, with participant as a random intercept and recording method, inclination, and their interaction as fixed effects; p values were Holm-adjusted across the six axes. Equivalence was explored with two one-sided tests against margins of ±0.5 mm and ±1.0 degrees; because these margins were specified post hoc, the equivalence analysis is exploratory. Results: Chair inclination did not detectably affect either recording method: no inclination main effect or method × inclination interaction survived multiplicity correction, and virtual records at 120 and 180 degrees differed by no more than 0.05 mm and 0.08 degrees. Recording method did differ. Conventional records were displaced relative to virtual records by 0.27 mm along the Y axis (95% CI 0.19 to 0.34; Holm-adjusted p < 0.001), in the same direction in 9 of 10 participants. The corresponding X-axis offset was 0.23 mm (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40) and did not survive multiplicity correction in the primary analysis (Holm-adjusted p = 0.060). The exploratory equivalence criterion was met, that is, the 90% confidence interval fell entirely within the post hoc equivalence margin, for 11 of 18 method × inclination comparisons, rising to 16 of 18 in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: In this pilot sample, no statistically detectable effect of dental chair backrest inclination between 90 and 180 degrees on the recorded mandibular position at MIP was observed for either recording method in healthy, fully dentate individuals; virtual and conventional records met the exploratory post hoc equivalence criterion in most rotational axes but showed a small, systematic translational offset of approximately 0.23 to 0.31 mm, most clearly along the Y axis. These preliminary findings require confirmation in a larger, prospectively powered and randomized equivalence trial with a prospectively defined equivalence margin.