Background and Objectives: This systemic review aims to appraise and analyse the awareness, knowledge, attitude, and practice of teledentistry among dental practitioners during COVID-19. Materials and Methods: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021283404). Cross-sectional articles on dental practitioners’ perceptions towards teledentistry published between March 2020 and September 2021 were searched in ten online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, EMBASE, SIGLE, EBSCO, LILACS, and Open Grey). The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to analyse the risk of bias (RoB) of each article, whereas the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendation tool was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Data were analysed using the DerSimonian–Laird random effect model based on a single-arm approach. Results: Six studies were included and demonstrated Level 3 evidence. A single-arm meta-analysis revealed that dental practitioners had a high level of awareness (70.4%) and attitude (72.5%) towards teledentistry during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their knowledge level (57.9%) was moderate with a poor practice level (35.8%). A substantial heterogeneity was observed with the overall I2 ranging from 90.78% to 98.21%. Furthermore, meta-regression indicated that the sample size of each study had a significant (p < 0.05) impact on the degree of data heterogeneity. Conclusions: Despite their high degree of awareness and attitude, dental practitioners demonstrated moderate knowledge and relatively poor practice of teledentistry during the COVID-19 pandemic. More well-designed studies are warranted to investigate the alternatives for enhancing dental practitioners’ knowledge and practice of teledentistry interventions.

Dental materials science education is frequently delivered via traditional didactic lectures in preclinical dental programs. This review aimed to appraise the current evidence on innovative pedagogical strategies in teaching dental materials science courses. English-language articles on teaching methods for dental materials science published between January 1990 to October 2022 were searched in nine online databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science [WoS], Science Direct, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, LILACS, Open Grey, and EMBASE) according to PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 and ROBIN-I tools, whereas the level of evidence was determined based on the OCEBM guidelines. Only 12 primary studies were included. Two randomized studies (RCTs) were deemed as being of “some concern”, and one showed a high risk of bias (RoB). Three non-randomized controlled studies (NRS) demonstrated a moderate RoB, whereas the remaining seven were low. Most studies were ranked at Levels 2 and 3 of evidence. Several innovative pedagogical strategies were identified: flipped classrooms, clinical-based learning, computer-assisted learning, group discussion, microteaching with the BOPPPS (bridge-in, learning objective, pre-test, participatory learning, post-test, and summary) model, and game-based learning. The evidence suggested that students generally showed positive perceptions toward these pedagogical strategies. Dental educators should revise their current undergraduate dental materials science curricula and integrate more effective teaching methods.

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry has the potential to revolutionise the field of dental technologies. However, dental technicians’ views on the use of AI in dental technology are still sparse in the literature. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceptions of dental technicians regarding the use of AI in their dental laboratory practice. Methods: Twelve dental technicians with at least five years of professional experience and currently working in Malaysia agreed to participate in the one-to-one in-depth online interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns, themes, and categories within the interview transcripts. Results: The analysis revealed two key themes: “Perceived Benefits of AI” and “Concerns and Challenges”. Dental technicians recognised the enhanced efficiency, productivity, accuracy, and precision that AI can bring to dental laboratories. They also acknowledged the streamlined workflow and improved communication facilitated by AI systems. However, concerns were raised regarding job security, professional identity, ethical considerations, and the need for adequate training and support. Conclusion: This research sheds light on the potential benefits and challenges associated with the integration of AI in dental laboratory practices. Understanding these perceptions and addressing the challenges can support the effective integration of AI in dental laboratories and contribute to the growing body of literature on AI in healthcare.

Background: Dental practitioners and dental students are classified as high-risk exposure to COVID-19 due to the nature of dental treatments, but evidence of their acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination is still scarce. Hence, this systemic review aims to critically appraise and analyse the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination among dental students and dental practitioners. Materials and methods: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286108) based on PRISMA guidelines. Cross-sectional articles on the dental students’ and dental practitioners’ acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine published between March 2020 to October 2021 were searched in eight online databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to analyse the risk of bias (RoB) of each article, whereas the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendation tool was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Data were analysed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model based on a single-arm approach. Results: Ten studies were included of which three studies focused on dental students and seven studies focused on dental practitioners. Four studies were deemed to exhibit moderate RoB and the remaining showed low RoB. All the studies demonstrated Level 3 evidence. Single-arm meta-analysis revealed that dental practitioners had a high level of vaccination acceptance (81.1%) than dental students (60.5%). A substantial data heterogeneity was observed with the overall I² ranging from 73.65% and 96.86%. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that dental practitioners from the Middle East and high-income countries showed greater (p < 0.05) acceptance levels, while meta-regression showed that the sample size of each study had no bearing on the degree of data heterogeneity. Conclusions: Despite the high degree of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among dental practitioners, dental students still demonstrated poor acceptance. These findings highlighted that evidence-based planning with effective approaches is warranted to enhance the knowledge and eradicate vaccination hesitancy, particularly among dental students.