Health science reports · 2026
Assessment of Multidimensional Biosafety Practices in Clinical Dental Training: A Cross-Sectional Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alshammari Abdullah F, Madfa Ahmed A, Alkhalil Basel R, Alazaima Dhay M, Alshammari Hamdan A, Alshammari Asma Z, Aloqla Saleh M, Alshammari Sattam S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biosafety and infection prevention are essential components of dental clinical training, yet adherence to recommended practices among undergraduate dental students remains variable. This study evaluates biosafety and infection prevention practices among undergraduate dental students at the University of Ha'il College of Dentistry.
METHODS: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among 99 undergraduate dental students undertaking clinical training at the College of Dentistry, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia. A standardized self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate five biosafety domains: Personal Protective Protocol (PPP), Dental Unit Management Protocol (DUMP), instrument management Protocol (IMP), Waste Management Protocol (WMP), and Ergonomics Protocol (EP). Scores were standardized to reflect levels of compliance. Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) were used to compare biosafety practices across clinical departments, and Spearman's correlation analysis (ρ) was used to examine relationships among biosafety domains, with effect sizes reported as correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: Students demonstrated moderate to high adherence across most domains, with the highest compliance in DUMP (mean = 0.78, SD = 0.22) and WMP (mean = 0.78, SD = 0.23). Greater variability was observed in PPP (mean = 0.67, SD = 0.29) and EP (mean = 0.74, SD = 0.33). Statistically significant interdepartmental differences were observed only for DUMP (p = 0.045), with higher adherence in technique-intensive departments. Positive correlations were observed between DUMP and IMP (ρ = 0.205, p = 0.042) and between IMP and WMP (ρ = 0.264, p = 0.008), indicating weak associations between these domains. However, the strength of these correlations is limited. PPP showed no statistically significant correlations with the other domains, suggesting largely independent patterns of behavior.
CONCLUSION: In general, undergraduate dental students exhibited satisfactory biosafety practices, although notable gaps persist in personal protective behaviors and environmental protection. The observed interdomain correlations highlight the interconnected nature of biosafety compliance. Targeted, department-specific educational interventions and continuous monitoring may strengthen biosafety culture and improve consistency across clinical training environments.
METHODS: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among 99 undergraduate dental students undertaking clinical training at the College of Dentistry, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia. A standardized self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate five biosafety domains: Personal Protective Protocol (PPP), Dental Unit Management Protocol (DUMP), instrument management Protocol (IMP), Waste Management Protocol (WMP), and Ergonomics Protocol (EP). Scores were standardized to reflect levels of compliance. Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) were used to compare biosafety practices across clinical departments, and Spearman's correlation analysis (ρ) was used to examine relationships among biosafety domains, with effect sizes reported as correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: Students demonstrated moderate to high adherence across most domains, with the highest compliance in DUMP (mean = 0.78, SD = 0.22) and WMP (mean = 0.78, SD = 0.23). Greater variability was observed in PPP (mean = 0.67, SD = 0.29) and EP (mean = 0.74, SD = 0.33). Statistically significant interdepartmental differences were observed only for DUMP (p = 0.045), with higher adherence in technique-intensive departments. Positive correlations were observed between DUMP and IMP (ρ = 0.205, p = 0.042) and between IMP and WMP (ρ = 0.264, p = 0.008), indicating weak associations between these domains. However, the strength of these correlations is limited. PPP showed no statistically significant correlations with the other domains, suggesting largely independent patterns of behavior.
CONCLUSION: In general, undergraduate dental students exhibited satisfactory biosafety practices, although notable gaps persist in personal protective behaviors and environmental protection. The observed interdomain correlations highlight the interconnected nature of biosafety compliance. Targeted, department-specific educational interventions and continuous monitoring may strengthen biosafety culture and improve consistency across clinical training environments.