Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Two Configurations of Hydroxyapatite and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate in Sinus Grafts with Simultaneous Implant Installation: An Experimental Study in Rabbits
Next Article in Special Issue
Pine-Oil-Derived Sodium Resinate Inhibits Growth and Acid Production of Streptococcus mutans In Vitro
Previous Article in Journal
Ethical Dilemmas for Dental Students in Greece
Previous Article in Special Issue
High-Throughput Sequencing Analysis of the Changes in the Salivary Microbiota of Hungarian Young and Adult Subpopulation by an Anthocyanin Chewing Gum and Toothbrush Change
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Dentistry Journal
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/dj11050119
dentistry-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Knowledge and Attitude towards Probiotics among Dental Students and Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Survey

by
Ksenia Babina
1,*,†,
Dilara Salikhova
1,†,
Maria Polyakova
1,
Alexandr Zaytsev
2,
Anna Egiazaryan
1 and
Nina Novozhilova
1
1
Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia
2
Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119991 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Dent. J. 2023, 11(5), 119; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11050119
Submission received: 1 April 2023 / Revised: 24 April 2023 / Accepted: 1 May 2023 / Published: 2 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Microbiology and Related Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This cross-sectional survey assessed the knowledge of and the attitude towards probiotics of dental students and academics at Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. Our questionnaire consisted of 15 questions divided into 3 sections: respondents’ sociodemographic data, knowledge on probiotics, and attitude towards probiotics. The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Out of the 658 questionnaires distributed, a total of 239 questionnaires were completed by the undergraduates, yielding a response rate of 39.6%, and 54 by the teaching staff (response rate = 100%). Most students (53.6%) and teachers (55.5%) had a fair knowledge of probiotics (p = 0.3135). A vast majority of dental students (97.9%) and all teachers had a positive attitude towards probiotics, with higher mean scores among academics (p < 0.001). A positive weak correlation was found between knowledge and attitude (Spearman r = 0.17, p = 0.0027). The results obtained reveal the need for more evidence-based educational trainings for university teachers and a course on probiotics to be included in the curriculum for dental students.

1. Introduction

The human body is a habitat for a wide range of microorganisms, with an average of 1.3 bacterial cells per human body cell [1]. The normal microbiota provides many benefits to the human body, such as regulation of the immune system, energy supply, protection against pathogens, and lipid metabolism [2]. The composition of the microflora is host-specific and changes throughout an individual’s lifetime [3]. Factors affecting the balance of the microflora include age, origin, dietary habits, environment, application of antibiotics, and certain diseases [4].
Most dental diseases, in particular dental caries [5,6,7,8], inflammatory periodontal disease [9,10], and halitosis [11,12,13], are caused by an imbalance in the oral microflora. Therefore, the replacement of pathogenic microorganisms with commensals is one of the strategies to prevent these diseases [14,15,16]. This can be achieved by using dietary supplements, i.e., oral biotics and probiotics [17].
According to the WHO, probiotics are “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” [18].
A study by Miller et al. was one of the first to investigate the ways in which various microorganisms could be used in dentistry [19]. Since then, a number of studies examining the effectiveness of oral probiotics for the prevention and treatment of dental caries [20,21,22], periodontal diseases [23,24,25], oral candidiasis [26,27], and halitosis [28,29] have been conducted. To date, numerous studies have evaluated different ways in which probiotics affect oral health: competition for food substrates and adhesion sites [30,31], changes in secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) levels in saliva [32], release of antimicrobial substances [33], decreased plaque formation rate [34,35,36,37], and changes in salivary secretion rate [38].
However, the use of probiotics in dentistry is still limited. One of the key problems is the lack of information on probiotics among both consumers and health care professionals (HCPs) [2,39,40]. Despite a growing number of studies showing the safety and efficacy of probiotics [21,27,41], the health professionals may be suspicious in recommending probiotics to patients when they receive conflicting reports [42]. Moreover, they may have difficulties in processing large volumes of information disseminated by commercial companies about the benefits of probiotics [42,43]. In addition, the efficacy of probiotics depends on the bacterial strain, dosage, and duration of administration [44]. The heterogeneity of these parameters in studies and other design features can lead to inconsistent results, thus not allowing clinicians to give evidence-based recommendations [45,46,47]. Previous studies have indicated that despite a positive attitude towards probiotics, most HCPs had fair knowledge of the topic [2,40,43]. The lack of knowledge of probiotics, along with the growing evidence supporting their efficacy, highlights the need for closer attention to the education of clinicians. Moreover, medical students, as future healthcare workers, have to know more about probiotics in order to give proper recommendations to their future patients [43]. University teachers play a major role in ensuring an appropriate level of knowledge among both students and clinicians, which ultimately will lead to better attitude and practices. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the awareness of dental academics and university students regarding probiotic use. Such evaluation could reveal specific knowledge gaps and areas that need to be focused on through an educational process and provide details about possible barriers to the use of probiotics.
The aim of our study was to evaluate the knowledge of and attitude towards probiotics among dental students and academics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Approval

The study was approved by Sechenov University’s Ethics Committee (Protocol no. 23-22, 17 November 2022).

2.2. Study Design, Target Population, and Sample Size

This cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted between December 2022 and February 2023 and included dental students and teachers of the Therapeutic Dentistry Department (Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia).
The study’s total population consisted of 604 third-, fourth-, and fifth-year Russian-speaking and English-speaking dental students and 54 teachers, who were also practicing dentists.
A minimum sample size of 235 students and 48 teachers was calculated assuming a 95% CI and a margin of error of 5% using the following formula:
Sample size   = z 2 × p 1 − p e 2 1 + z 2 × p 1 − p e 2 N ,
where
  • z (z-score, i.e., the number of standard deviations a given proportion deviates from the mean) = 1.96 (95% CI);
  • p (standard deviation) = 0.5;
  • e (margin of error) = 0.05;
  • N (population size) = 604 (students); 54 (teachers).

2.3. Questionnaire Development

There was no prior validated questionnaire to evaluate dental students’ and academics’ knowledge and attitude regarding probiotics. Thus, a questionnaire was developed by the authors in English and translated into Russian. The English version of the questionnaire was created based on the questionnaires used in previously published studies [2,48,49,50,51].
The expert panel consisting of a gastroenterologist, a dental professional, and a medical statistician approved the content validity of the questionnaire on both languages. In our pilot study, the face validity of the Russian version of the questionnaire was tested on a group of dental students (n = 30), whose feedback was used to eliminate words, phrases, or questions that were difficult to understand. The pilot study respondents were also asked to record the time they had spent on completing the questionnaire. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire was corrected by the authors to eliminate any ambiguities. The pilot sample data were excluded from the final analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for this questionnaire was not calculated, as each item represented a unique context rather than an underlying latent construct.
The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 15 questions divided into 3 sections: respondents’ sociodemographic data (5 questions) including age, sex, and residence; questions about participants’ subjective knowledge on probiotics (5 questions); and questions related to participants’ attitude towards probiotics (5 questions).

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

The link to the online survey was sent via email and social media platforms. The survey was voluntary and anonymous and included no personal data. The respondents were informed that completion of the questionnaire indicated agreement to join the study and that their responses would be used for academic and research purposes. The data were collected through Google Form.
The knowledge section comprised one single-choice question, three multiple-choice questions, and one true or false question. Each correct answer was assigned a score of one, and each incorrect answer was assigned a score of zero. The maximum score for the knowledge questions was 22.
The five-point Likert scale was used to assess the four items of the attitude questions. Three items were positive attitude statements (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree), and one was a negative attitude statement (5 = strongly disagree, 4 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 2 = agree, 1 = strongly agree).
One more question was asked about the willingness of the respondents to recommend probiotics to patients in case their effectiveness was substantiated by peer-reviewed literature (3 = yes, 2 = not sure, 1 = no).
Thus, the maximum score for the attitude questions was 23.
The level of knowledge was categorized as good, fair, or poor. It was categorized as good if a respondent’s total score was >75% (17–22 points), fair if it was in the range of 50–75% (12–16 points), and poor if it was ≤50% (0–11 points) of the maximum score. The attitude scores were categorized as positive (total score ≥ 50% (12–23 points)) and negative (total score < 50% (5–11 points)).
Data entry was completed in the MS Excel database. The data were exported into the CSV file format, which was then used for data analysis in R version 3.6.0 (26 April 2019) with the following packages: “doBy”, “rstatix”, “stats”, and in RStudio version 1.2.1335 2009–2019. The data are presented as means, medians, standard deviations, 25th and 75th percentiles (quantitative variables), and counts and percentages (qualitative variables). The Mann–Whitney U test was performed to compare quantitative variables in the independent groups; the Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the proportions. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculated to reveal the correlation between knowledge and attitude scores.

3. Results

Out of the 658 questionnaires distributed (604 to students and 54 to teachers), a total of 239 questionnaires were completed by the undergraduates, yielding a response rate of 39.6%, and 54 by the teaching staff (response rate = 100%). The response rate for 3rd-year students was higher than that for 4th- and 5th-year students (84.5%, 13.4%, and 17.8%, respectively, p < 0.001). Figure 1 shows the students’ distribution by year of education.
Table 1 displays the group, age, and sex distributions of the participants. A majority of the participants were females, accounting for 68.5% (n = 164) and 81.5% (n = 44) of the students and teachers, respectively. The mean age of the students was 21.5 years, and the mean age of the teachers was 39.8.
Most students were from Russia. Others were from countries including Iran, China, Iraq, Egypt, and others. The distribution of the respondents by country of origin is shown in Figure 2.
The majority of the students (53.6%) and teachers (55.5%) had a fair knowledge of probiotics. One in five University teachers (20.4%) demonstrated a good current understanding of the topic, whereas only 13.8% of undergraduates achieved a good knowledge score. A little over a third of the students (32.6%) had a poor level of knowledge. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the knowledge of probiotics (Table 2).
Table 3 shows the distribution of the responses to the knowledge questions about probiotics across the study groups. The majority of the respondents in both groups were familiar with the term “probiotics” and defined it correctly. Concerning the health benefits linked to probiotics, approximately a fifth of undergraduates and a quarter of teachers chose all systemic conditions in which the use of probiotics may be beneficial. Only one clinician (1.9%) and eight students (3.3%) chose all the correct options regarding the bacterial species containing probiotic strains. The optimal time for probiotics intake was correctly chosen by 58.2% of the students and 55.5% of the academics.
A vast majority of the respondents in both groups knew that probiotics exert a favorable effect on gut health. Most respondents noted their role in immune health, in patients with obesity, and in the prevention of respiratory and urinary tract infections. The respondents in both groups were least aware of the probiotics benefits for mental and heart health (Figure 3).
Regarding oral health, more than half of the survey participants were aware of the role of probiotics in the prevention of dental caries and the treatment of halitosis and periodontal and oral mucosa diseases (Figure 4).
Out of the eight options, the most recognized bacterial species were Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus. The bacterial species least recognized by the teachers were Bacillus subtillis (22%) and Enterococcus faecium (17%), while the students knew the least about the probiotic strains of Saccharomyces boulardii (19%), Bacillus subtillis (16%), and Escherichia coli (15%) (Figure 5).
A vast majority of dental students (97.9%) and all teachers had a positive attitude towards probiotics. The teachers reported a higher mean of the attitude scores compared to the undergraduates (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
More than a half of the students and academics agreed that probiotics are an evidence-based intervention for health and may be used in clinical medicine. Only five students (2.1%), and no teachers, strongly agreed that probiotics might be potentially dangerous. The majority of the undergraduate respondents and academics noted that there is a need for HCPs’ education on probiotics. Finally, the vast majority of teachers gave a positive answer about their willingness to recommend probiotics, if substantiated by peer-reviewed literature. Most students also answered this question positively (Table 5 and Table 6).
Although weak, a positive correlation was found between knowledge and attitude (Spearman r = 0.17, p = 0.0027) (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

The balance between beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms is crucial for oral health [52,53,54]. Disturbance in this balance, called “dysbiosis”, may result in the development of oral and systemic diseases [55,56]. This makes the oral cavity a target for probiotics application [54]. Thus, dental practitioners should be aware of the application of probiotics in dentistry and their role in the prophylaxis and treatment of oral diseases. In this study, we aimed to assess the knowledge and attitude towards probiotics among dental students and teachers. Most of the respondents had a fair knowledge of probiotics, with no significant differences between the groups; nevertheless, a vast majority of the participants showed a positive attitude towards probiotics.
The study’s population included third-, fourth-, and fifth-year Russian-speaking and English-speaking dental students and teachers (Therapeutic Dentistry Department, Sechenov University). All teachers completed the survey (response rate = 100%). Interestingly, the response rate was significantly higher among the third-year students (84.5%) than among the fourth- (13.4%) and fifth-year (17.8%) students. This may be explained by the fact that younger students are better disciplined and have more spare time. Moreover, the third year is when our students start studying clinical subjects, which is why third-year students are generally more motivated to participate in activities related to their future practice.
We assessed the knowledge of probiotics in general and categorized it as “good”, “fair”, or “poor”, as well as the knowledge regarding particular questions, i.e., the definition of probiotics, their benefits for systemic and oral health, probiotic strains, and the favorable time of intake. This study showed that most of our respondents (53.6% of the students and 55.5% of the teachers) had a fair knowledge of probiotics. Only 13.8% of the undergraduates and 20.4% of the academics demonstrated a good knowledge of the topic. These results are in agreement with those of Payahoo et al. who found that 50.7% of medical students had a fair knowledge of probiotics [40]. In a study by Rahmah et al., most health science students had a fair (80%) or good (9.2%) knowledge of probiotics [43]. Arshad et al. surveyed HCPs on probiotics use and classified their knowledge as “good” or “poor” [2]. They found that only a small percentage of their respondents (15.1%) had a good knowledge of the topic.
In the present study, we found no significant differences between dental students and teachers regarding their knowledge of probiotics. In contrast, Soni et al. found that practitioners had a significantly higher level of awareness and knowledge of probiotic use compared to students [57]. Barqawi et al. concluded that although HCPs had a slightly better knowledge of the microbiota, it was not significantly better than that of non-HCPs, and almost half of the HCPs had average knowledge scores (49.4%) [58].
In our study, 77.4% of the students and 81.5% of the teachers defined the term “probiotics” correctly. This is in line with the results of other studies, in which the correct definition was chosen by over 80% of the respondents (students or HCPs) [40,42,43,50,57].
Only 21.3% of the dental students and 26% of the teachers in our study chose all systemic diseases in which the use of probiotics may be beneficial. In the study by Payahoo et al., about 60% of medical students identified the health benefits of probiotics correctly [40]. This may be due to a better knowledge of probiotics on the part of medical students in general compared to dental students. However, in the study at hand, more respondents (59.4% of undergraduates and 70.4% of academics) were aware of the role of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of oral diseases.
According to the studies by Fijan et al. and Rahmah et al., Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus were the most recognizable genes of bacteria containing probiotic strains [42,43]. Our data supports the evidence from the aforementioned studies. Out of the eight options, the most recognized bacterial species in both groups were Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus. These bacterial genera are most commonly used in the prophylaxis and treatment of oral diseases [53].
We found that the bacterial species least recognized by the teachers included Bacillus subtillis (22%) and Enterococcus faecium (17%), while the students knew the least about the probiotic strains Saccharomyces boulardii (19%), Bacillus subtillis (16%), and Escherichia coli (15%). Similarly, Enterococcus faecium, Saccharomyces boulardii, and Escherichia coli were correctly listed as containing probiotic strains in the study by Fijan et al. by less than a third of the respondents [42].
Over 50% of the students and academics claimed that probiotics should be taken before meals. While it is widely accepted, the literature addressing this question is scarce, and more studies are necessary to make correct claims. We considered the answer “before meal” as correct in accordance with a study by Tompkins et al. [59].
In this study, a vast majority of the respondents in both groups had a positive attitude towards probiotics. Interestingly, the mean attitude score was significantly higher among the academics than among the students. Despite a positive attitude in general, almost 30% of the students “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that probiotics may be dangerous. At the same time, only 7.4% of the teachers “agreed” with this statement. Around 80% of the respondents in both groups noted the importance of additional education on probiotics among HCPs. In many previous surveys, the majority of HCPs demonstrated a positive attitude regarding the use of probiotics [2,50,57,60]. However, in the study by Rahmah et al., only a half of health science students had a positive attitude towards their use [43].
Doctors are expected to prescribe drugs using an evidence-based approach [61]. The last question in the “Attitude” section was about the readiness to recommend probiotics if their effectiveness was substantiated by peer-reviewed literature. Surprisingly, 5% of the students were not ready to administer probiotics even if their effect was evidence-based, and 16% of the students had doubts about this question. In the study by Rahmah et al., the proportion of the students unwilling to recommend probiotics was even higher: more than a half had a neutral position, and 10% of them did not intend to use probiotics in their practice [43]. On the other hand, a vast majority of academics in our study answered the question positively. Similarly, Basrowi et al. reported that 97% of HCPs (pediatricians) considered prescribing probiotics to their patients [62]. In a study by Oliver et al., 77% of health care providers were “quite a bit” and “very much” willing to recommend probiotics if their effectiveness was substantiated by peer-reviewed literature [50]. According to Fijan et al., the majority of medical doctors (82.4%) and dentists (83.3%) had advised their patients to use probiotics [42].
It is important to note that there are different regulations on prescribing probiotics in different countries [42]. However, the negative attitude of the students toward probiotics administration in the present study cannot be attributed to any restrictions, as the majority of the respondents were from countries where the prescription of probiotics is not prohibited.
In our study, a weak yet positive correlation was found between knowledge and attitude scores. The results obtained corroborate the findings from the study by Rahmah et al. [43]; however, they differ from the findings presented by Soni et al. These authors showed that there was a positive and significant correlation between the knowledge and the attitude of HCPs [57].

5. Limitations

The present study included academics and students from one university, which is why its results cannot be generalized. However, since the survey was conducted in the largest medical university of Russia, with an extensive international student population, we expect the results to be representative. Another factor that may have affected the results is that we used convenience sampling and a population comprising mostly third-year university students. In addition, another limitation is that practice was not assessed. A response bias may be present due to the use of self-reporting data, which may affect the accuracy of the findings. Moreover, the use of the Likert scale instead of open questions could have influenced the results.

6. Conclusions

The results of our survey showed a fair knowledge of probiotics among dental students and teachers. The main knowledge gaps revealed include the effects of probiotics on systemic and oral health, bacterial species that comprise probiotic strains, and the regimen of probiotics intake. At the same time, the participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards the use of probiotics. To translate their positive attitude into practice and raise awareness regarding the use of probiotics, there is a need for more evidence-based educational trainings for university teachers, who play an important role in educating medical students and clinicians. A course on probiotics focused on the aforementioned knowledge gaps should be included in the curriculum of dental students.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.B. and N.N.; methodology, K.B. and N.N.; software, M.P.; validation, M.P.; formal analysis, M.P. and A.Z.; investigation, D.S.; resources, D.S.; data curation, D.S., A.E. and A.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B., D.S., N.N., M.P., A.E. and A.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.B., N.N. and A.Z.; visualization, A.E.; supervision, K.B. and N.N.; project administration, K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) (Protocol no. 23-22).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sender, R.; Fuchs, S.; Milo, R. Are We Really Vastly Outnumbered? Revisiting the Ratio of Bacterial to Host Cells in Humans. Cell 2016, 164, 337–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arshad, M.S.; Saqlain, M.; Majeed, A.; Imran, I.; Saeed, H.; Saleem, M.U.; Abrar, M.A.; Islam, M.; Hashmi, F.; Akbar, M.; et al. Cross-Sectional Study to Assess the Healthcare Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practices about Probiotics Use in Pakistan. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e047494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sekirov, I.; Russell, S.L.; Antunes, L.C.M.; Finlay, B.B. Gut Microbiota in Health and Disease. Physiol. Rev. 2010, 90, 859–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Duda-Chodak, A.; Tarko, T.; Satora, P.; Sroka, P. Interaction of Dietary Compounds, Especially Polyphenols, with the Intestinal Microbiota: A Review. Eur. J. Nutr. 2015, 54, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Godavarthy, D.; Naik, R.; Gali, P.; Ahmed Mujib, B.; Reddy Baddam, V. Can Coffee Combat Caries? An in Vitro Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2020, 24, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhan, L. Rebalancing the Caries Microbiome Dysbiosis: Targeted Treatment and Sugar Alcohols. Adv. Dent. Res. 2018, 29, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lin, W.; Kuo, Y.; Chen, C.; Huang, Y.; Hsu, C.; Lin, J.; Liu, C.; Chen, J.; Hsia, K.; Ho, H. Viable and Heat-Killed Probiotic Strains Improve Oral Immunity by Elevating the IgA Concentration in the Oral Mucosa. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 3541–3549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lin, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhou, X.; Li, Y. Inhibition of Streptococcus Mutans Biofilm Formation by Strategies Targeting the Metabolism of Exopolysaccharides. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 47, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Arce, M.; Endo, N.; Dutzan, N.; Abusleme, L. A Reappraisal of Microbiome Dysbiosis during Experimental Periodontitis. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2022, 37, 180–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blasco-Baque, V.; Garidou, L.; Pomié, C.; Escoula, Q.; Loubieres, P.; le Gall-David, S.; Lemaitre, M.; Nicolas, S.; Klopp, P.; Waget, A.; et al. Periodontitis Induced by Porphyromonas gingivalis Drives Periodontal Microbiota Dysbiosis and Insulin Resistance via an Impaired Adaptive Immune Response. Gut 2017, 66, 872–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ortiz, V.; Filippi, A. Halitosis. In Monographs in Oral Science; Karger Publishers: Berlin, Germany, 2021; Volume 29, pp. 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kumbargere Nagraj, S.; Eachempati, P.; Uma, E.; Singh, V.P.; Ismail, N.M.; Varghese, E. Interventions for Managing Halitosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 12, CD012213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Seerangaiyan, K.; Jüch, F.; Winkel, E.G. Tongue Coating: Its Characteristics and Role in Intra-Oral Halitosis and General Health—A Review. J. Breath Res. 2018, 12, 034001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bustamante, M.; Oomah, B.D.; Mosi-Roa, Y.; Rubilar, M.; Burgos-Díaz, C. Probiotics as an Adjunct Therapy for the Treatment of Halitosis, Dental Caries and Periodontitis. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lin, T.-H.; Lin, C.-H.; Pan, T.-M. The Implication of Probiotics in the Prevention of Dental Caries. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gruner, D.; Paris, S.; Schwendicke, F. Probiotics for Managing Caries and Periodontitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Dent. 2016, 48, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Manmontri, C.; Nirunsittirat, A.; Piwat, S.; Wattanarat, O.; Pahumunto, N.; Makeudom, A.; Sastraruji, T.; Krisanaprakornkit, S.; Teanpaisan, R. Reduction of Streptococcus Mutans by Probiotic Milk: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2020, 24, 2363–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. FAO. World Health Organization: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Probiotics in Food Health and Nutritional Properties and Guidelines for Evaluation. In FAO Food and Nutrition Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; Volume 85, pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller, C.H.; Kleinman, J.L. Effect of Microbial Interactions on In Vitro Plaque Formation by Streptococcus Mutans. J. Dent. Res. 1974, 53, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sandoval, F.; Faleiros, S.; Cabello, R.; Díaz-Dosque, M.; Rodríguez, G.; Escobar, A. The Consumption of Milk Supplemented with Probiotics Decreases the Occurrence of Caries and the Salivary Concentration of HβD-3 in Children. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 3823–3830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Piwat, S.; Teanpaisan, R.; Manmontri, C.; Wattanarat, O.; Pahumunto, N.; Makeudom, A.; Krisanaprakornkit, S.; Nirunsittirat, A. Efficacy of Probiotic Milk for Caries Regression in Preschool Children: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Caries Res. 2020, 54, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Staszczyk, M.; Jamka-Kasprzyk, M.; Kościelniak, D.; Cienkosz-Stepańczak, B.; Krzyściak, W.; Jurczak, A. Effect of a Short-Term Intervention with Lactobacillus Salivarius Probiotic on Early Childhood Caries—An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Slawik, S.; Staufenbiel, I.; Schilke, R.; Nicksch, S.; Weinspach, K.; Stiesch, M.; Eberhard, J. Probiotics Affect the Clinical Inflammatory Parameters of Experimental Gingivitis in Humans. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 65, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Invernici, M.M.; Furlaneto, F.A.C.; Salvador, S.L.; Ouwehand, A.C.; Salminen, S.; Mantziari, A.; Vinderola, G.; Ervolino, E.; Santana, S.I.; Silva, P.H.F.; et al. Bifidobacterium Animalis Subsp Lactis HN019 Presents Antimicrobial Potential against Periodontopathogens and Modulates the Immunological Response of Oral Mucosa in Periodontitis Patients. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Invernici, M.M.; Salvador, S.L.; Silva, P.H.F.; Soares, M.S.M.; Casarin, R.; Palioto, D.B.; Souza, S.L.S.; Taba, M.; Novaes, A.B.; Furlaneto, F.A.C.; et al. Effects of Bifidobacterium Probiotic on the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, 1198–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ishikawa, K.H.; Mayer, M.P.A.; Miyazima, T.Y.; Matsubara, V.H.; Silva, E.G.; Paula, C.R.; Campos, T.T.; Nakamae, A.E.M. A Multispecies Probiotic Reduces Oral Candida Colonization in Denture Wearers. J. Prosthodont. 2015, 24, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, D.; Li, Q.; Liu, C.; Lin, M.; Li, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhu, Z.; Gong, Q.; Zhou, H. Efficacy and Safety of Probiotics in the Treatment of Candida -Associated Stomatitis. Mycoses 2014, 57, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Benic, G.Z.; Farella, M.; Morgan, X.C.; Viswam, J.; Heng, N.C.; Cannon, R.D.; Mei, L. Oral Probiotics Reduce Halitosis in Patients Wearing Orthodontic Braces: A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J. Breath Res. 2019, 13, 036010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, D.-S.; Kim, M.; Nam, S.-H.; Kang, M.-S.; Lee, S.-A. Effects of Oral Probiotics on Subjective Halitosis, Oral Health, and Psychosocial Health of College Students: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cagetti, M.G.; Mastroberardino, S.; Milia, E.; Cocco, F.; Lingström, P.; Campus, G. The Use of Probiotic Strains in Caries Prevention: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2013, 5, 2530–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Twetman, S.; Stecksén-Blicks, C. Probiotics and Oral Health Effects in Children. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2008, 18, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Surono, I.S.; Koestomo, F.P.; Novitasari, N.; Zakaria, F.R.; Yulianasari; Koesnandar. Novel Probiotic Enterococcus Faecium IS-27526 Supplementation Increased Total Salivary SIgA Level and Bodyweight of Pre-School Children: A Pilot Study. Anaerobe 2011, 17, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sharifi-Rad, J.; Rodrigues, C.F.; Stojanović-Radić, Z.; Dimitrijević, M.; Aleksić, A.; Neffe-Skocińska, K.; Zielińska, D.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D.; Salehi, B.; Milton Prabu, S.; et al. Probiotics: Versatile Bioactive Components in Promoting Human Health. Medicina 2020, 56, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Patil, R.; Dastoor, P.; Unde, M. Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Probiotic Milk and Fluoride Mouthrinse on Salivary Streptococcus Mutans Counts and Plaque Scores in Children—An in Vivo Experimental Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2019, 37, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Krasse, P.; Carlsson, B.; Dahl, C.; Paulsson, A.; Nilsson, Å.; Sinkiewicz, G. Decreased Gum Bleeding and Reduced Gingivitis by the Probiotic Lactobacillus Reuteri. Swed. Dent. J. 2006, 30, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  36. Maden, E.A.; Altun, C.; Ozmen, B.; Basak, F. Antimicrobial Effect of Toothpastes Containing Fluoride, Xylitol, or Xylitol-Probiotic on Salivary Streptococcus Mutans and Lactobacillus in Children. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2018, 21, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Babina, K.; Salikhova, D.; Polyakova, M.; Svitich, O.; Samoylikov, R.; Ahmad El-Abed, S.; Zaytsev, A.; Novozhilova, N. The Effect of Oral Probiotics (Streptococcus Salivarius K12) on the Salivary Level of Secretory Immunoglobulin A, Salivation Rate, and Oral Biofilm: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ferrer, M.D.; López-López, A.; Nicolescu, T.; Perez-Vilaplana, S.; Boix-Amorós, A.; Dzidic, M.; Garcia, S.; Artacho, A.; Llena, C.; Mira, A. Topic Application of the Probiotic Streptococcus Dentisani Improves Clinical and Microbiological Parameters Associated With Oral Health. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 00465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dailey, F.E.; Turse, E.P.; Rossow, B.; Kuwajima, V.K.; Tahan, V. Probiotics for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases: An Updated Review of the Published Literature. Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets 2019, 19, 549–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Payahoo, L.; Nikniaz, Z.; Mahdavi, R.; Abadi, M.A.J. Perceptions of Medical Sciences Students Towards Probiotics. Health Promot. Perspect. 2012, 2, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hu, D.; Zhong, T.; Dai, Q. Clinical Efficacy of Probiotics as an Adjunctive Therapy to Scaling and Root Planning in The Management of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2021, 21, 101547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fijan, S.; Frauwallner, A.; Varga, L.; Langerholc, T.; Rogelj, I.; Lorber, M.; Lewis, P.; Povalej Bržan, P. Health Professionals’ Knowledge of Probiotics: An International Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rahmah, P.A.; Khairani, A.F.; Atik, N.; Arisanti, N.; Fatimah, S.N. Correlation of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Probiotics for the Digestive System Among Health Science Students. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2021, 14, 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Markowiak, P.; Śliżewska, K. Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on Human Health. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sanders, M.E.; Guarner, F.; Guerrant, R.; Holt, P.R.; Quigley, E.M.; Sartor, R.B.; Sherman, P.M.; Mayer, E.A. An Update on the Use and Investigation of Probiotics in Health and Disease. Gut 2013, 62, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Weichert, S.; Schroten, H.; Adam, R. The Role of Prebiotics and Probiotics in Prevention and Treatment of Childhood Infectious Diseases. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2012, 31, 859–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zamfir, M.; Angelescu, I.-R.; Grosu-Tudor, S.-S. In Vitro Evaluation of Commercial Probiotic Products Containing Streptococcus Salivarius K12 by Assessment of Probiotic Viability and Inhibitory Potency against Respiratory Pathogens. Processes 2023, 11, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wilson, Z.; Whitehead, K. A Cross Sectional Survey to Assess Healthcare Professionals’ Attitudes to and Understanding of Probiotics. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2019, 34, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ababneh, M.; Elrashed, N.; Al-Azayzih, A. Evaluation of Jordanian Healthcare Providers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns towards Probiotics. Expert. Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2020, 20, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oliver, L.; Rasmussen, H.; Gregoire, M.B.; Chen, Y. Health Care Provider’s Knowledge, Perceptions, and Use of Probiotics and Prebiotics. Top. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 29, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hasosah, M.; Qurashi, M.; Balkhair, A.; Alzahrani, Z.; Alabbasi, A.; Alzahrani, M.; Alnahdi, W.; Shafei, S.; Bafaqih, M.; Khan, M. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Understanding of Probiotics among Pediatricians in Different Regions of Saudi Arabia. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marsh, P.D. Contemporary Perspective on Plaque Control. Br. Dent. J. 2012, 212, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Janczarek, M.; Bachanek, T.; Mazur, E.; Chałas, R. The Role of Probiotics in Prevention of Oral Diseases. Postep. Hig. Med. Dosw. 2016, 70, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Abikshyeet, P.; Mishra, P.; Bhuyan, L.; Kumar, V.; Mahapatra, N.; Adhikary, T. Probiotics: Dawn of a New Era in Dental Caries Management. J. Pharm. Bioallied. Sci. 2022, 14, S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Chimenos-Küstner, E.; Giovannoni, M.L.; Schemel-Suárez, M. Disbiosis Como Factor Determinante de Enfermedad Oral y Sistémica: Importancia Del Microbioma. Med. Clin. 2017, 149, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Inchingolo, A.D.; Malcangi, G.; Semjonova, A.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Patano, A.; Coloccia, G.; Ceci, S.; Marinelli, G.; Di Pede, C.; Ciocia, A.M.; et al. Oralbiotica/Oralbiotics: The Impact of Oral Microbiota on Dental Health and Demineralization: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Children 2022, 9, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Soni, R.; Tank, K.; Jain, N. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Health Professionals about Probiotic Use in Ahmedabad, India. Nutr. Food Sci. 2018, 48, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barqawi, H.J.; Adra, S.F.; Ramzi, H.R.; Abouaggour, M.A.; Almehairi, S.K. Evaluating the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of the UAE Community on Microbiota Composition and the Main Factors Affecting It: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e047869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tompkins, T.A.; Mainville, I.; Arcand, Y. The Impact of Meals on a Probiotic during Transit through a Model of the Human Upper Gastrointestinal Tract. Benef. Microbes 2011, 2, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Imran Ali, S.; Shyum Naqvi, B.; Tasleem, S. Physicians’ Knowledge and Attitude Concerning the Clinical Use of Probiotics for the Treatment of Infantile Diarrhea in Sindh, Pakistan. World J. Pharm. Res. 2018, 7, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Trotta, F.; Mayer, F.; Mecozzi, A.; Amato, L.; Addis, A. Impact of Guidance on the Prescription Patterns of G-CSFs for the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia Following Anticancer Chemotherapy: A Population-Based Utilization Study in the Lazio Region. Biodrugs 2017, 31, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wagiu Basrowi, R.; Krisnamurti, D.; Wibowo, Y.; Vandenplas, Y. Factors Influencing Probiotics Recommendation among Pediatricians in Indonesia. Integr. Food Nutr. Metab. 2019, 6, 1000265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dentistry 11 00119 g001 550
Figure 1. Students’ distribution by year of education.
Figure 1. Students’ distribution by year of education.
Dentistry 11 00119 g001
Dentistry 11 00119 g002 550
Figure 2. Students’ distribution by country of origin.
Figure 2. Students’ distribution by country of origin.
Dentistry 11 00119 g002
Dentistry 11 00119 g003 550
Figure 3. Respondents’ knowledge of probiotics’ benefits for health conditions.
Figure 3. Respondents’ knowledge of probiotics’ benefits for health conditions.
Dentistry 11 00119 g003
Dentistry 11 00119 g004 550
Figure 4. Respondents’ knowledge of probiotics’ benefits for oral health conditions.
Figure 4. Respondents’ knowledge of probiotics’ benefits for oral health conditions.
Dentistry 11 00119 g004
Dentistry 11 00119 g005 550
Figure 5. Respondents’ knowledge of bacterial species that include probiotic strains.
Figure 5. Respondents’ knowledge of bacterial species that include probiotic strains.
Dentistry 11 00119 g005
Dentistry 11 00119 g006 550
Figure 6. Correlation between knowledge and attitude.
Figure 6. Correlation between knowledge and attitude.
Dentistry 11 00119 g006
Table
Table 1. Subject demographics.
Table 1. Subject demographics.
StudentsTeachers
Sex n (%) 1
Female164 (68.6)44 (81.5)
Male75 (31.4)10 (18.5)
Total239 (100)54 (100)
Age
Mean (SD)21.5 (2.4)39.8 (11.0)
Median [Q1, Q3]21 [20, 22]37 [30, 50.75]
Min, Max18, 3824, 60
SD—standard deviation; 1 difference between the groups was insignificant (0.0683) according to Fisher’s exact test.
Table
Table 2. Knowledge of probiotics among dental students and teachers.
Table 2. Knowledge of probiotics among dental students and teachers.
Knowledge
Abs (%)		p-Value 1Mean ± SDp-Value 2
PoorFairGood
Students78 (32.6)128 (53.6)33 (13.8)0.313513.0 ± 3.60.1594
Teachers19 (24.1)30 (55.5)11 (20.4)13.7 ± 3.3
Abs—absolute number; SD—standard deviation; 1 according to Fisher’s exact test; 2 according to Mann-Whitney U test.
Table
Table 3. Distribution of the responses to the knowledge questions about probiotics among dental students and teachers.
Table 3. Distribution of the responses to the knowledge questions about probiotics among dental students and teachers.
QuestionStudents,
Abs (%)		Teachers,
Abs (%)		p-Value 1
CAIACAIA
Definition of the term185 (77.4)54 (22.6)44 (81.5)10 (18.5)0.5876
Probiotic benefits for systemic diseases *51 (21.3)188 (78.7)14 (26.0)40 (74.0)0.4712
Probiotic benefits for oral diseases *142 (59.4)97 (40.6)38 (70.4)16 (29.6)0.1639
Bacterial species that have probiotic strains *8 (3.3)231 (96.7)1 (1.9)53 (98.1)1.0
Optimal time for probiotics intake139 (58.2)100 (41.8)30 (55.5)24 (44.4)0.7616
Abs—absolute number; CA—correct answer; IA—incorrect answer; * respondents chose all correct answers; 1 according to Fisher’s exact test.
Table
Table 4. Respondents’ attitude toward probiotics.
Table 4. Respondents’ attitude toward probiotics.
Attitude
Abs (%)		p-Value 1Mean ± SDp-Value 2
PositiveNegative
Students234 (97.9)5 (2.1)0.588317.1 ± 2.3<0.001
Teachers54 (100.0)0 (0)19.1 ± 2.0
Abs—absolute number; SD—standard deviation; 1 according to Fisher’s exact test; 2 according to Mann–Whitney U test.
Table
Table 5. Distribution of the responses to the attitude questions about probiotics among dental students.
Table 5. Distribution of the responses to the attitude questions about probiotics among dental students.
ItemRespondents’ Answers
Abs (%)
SAANDSD
Probiotics may be used in clinical medicine43 (18.0)123 (51.5)52 (21.7)14 (5.9)7 (2.9)
Probiotics are an evidence-based intervention for health29 (12.1)123 (51.5)62 (25.9)22 (9.2)3 (1.3)
Probiotics can be dangerous for health7 (2.9)62 (26.0)82 (34.3)76 (31.8)12 (5.0)
There is a need for healthcare professional education on probiotics55 (23.0)128 (53.6)38 (16.0)13 (5.4)5 (2.0)
YesNot sureNo
If substantiated by peer-reviewed literature, would you be willing to recommend probiotics to your patients?188 (78.7)38 (15.9)13 (5.4)
Abs—absolute number; SA—strongly agree; A—agree; N—neutral; D—disagree; SA—strongly disagree.
Table
Table 6. Distribution of the responses to the attitude questions about probiotics among dental teachers.
Table 6. Distribution of the responses to the attitude questions about probiotics among dental teachers.
ItemRespondents’ Answers
Abs (%)
SAANDSD
Probiotics may be used in clinical medicine 123 (42.6)22 (40.7)6 (11.1)2 (3.7)1 (1.9)
Probiotics are an evidence-based intervention for health 211 (20.4)30 (55.6)10 (18.5)3 (5.5)-
Probiotics can be dangerous for health 3-4 (7.4)7 (13.0)33 (61.1)10 (18.5)
There is a need for healthcare professional education on probiotics 416 (29.6)29 (53.7)9 (16.7)--
YesNot sureNo
If substantiated by peer-reviewed literature, would you be willing to recommend probiotics to your patients? 552 (96.3)2 (3.7)-
Abs—absolute number; SA—strongly agree; A—agree; N—neutral; D—disagree; SA—strongly disagree; 1 p = 0.005214; 2 p = 0.3902; 3 p < 0.001; 4 p = 0.3397; 5 p = 0.005857, according to Fisher’s exact test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Babina, K.; Salikhova, D.; Polyakova, M.; Zaytsev, A.; Egiazaryan, A.; Novozhilova, N. Knowledge and Attitude towards Probiotics among Dental Students and Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Dent. J. 2023, 11, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11050119

AMA Style

Babina K, Salikhova D, Polyakova M, Zaytsev A, Egiazaryan A, Novozhilova N. Knowledge and Attitude towards Probiotics among Dental Students and Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Dentistry Journal. 2023; 11(5):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11050119

Chicago/Turabian Style

Babina, Ksenia, Dilara Salikhova, Maria Polyakova, Alexandr Zaytsev, Anna Egiazaryan, and Nina Novozhilova. 2023. "Knowledge and Attitude towards Probiotics among Dental Students and Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Survey" Dentistry Journal 11, no. 5: 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11050119

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop