Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nationwide survey investigates dental students' preferences and experiences with digital workflows in Finland, revealing gaps in training support.
AIM: Chairside computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) methods are becoming part of everyday dentistry. As digitally supported manufacturing is expected to play a major role in the future, its integration into undergraduate curricula has increased. However, concerns remain regarding the adequacy of educational methods and allocated teaching time. This study investigated the utilization and perceptions of chairside digital workflows among dental students in Finland, with a focus on restorative dentistry and prosthodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a questionnaire distributed to fourth- and fifth-year dental students across all Finnish dental schools. Students were invited via email, which included information on the study aims and a link to an online survey. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. RESULTS: A total of 76 students (36 fourth-year and 40 fifth-year) responded, corresponding to a response rate of 24.4%. Chairside CAD/CAM systems, primarily Cerec and Planscan, were widely used. Inlays, onlays, and all-ceramic crowns were the most common applications, with 56.9% and 70.8% of students reporting experience in these procedures, respectively. The number of restorations completed varied significantly (range: <2 to >10; p=0.003). Most students reported dissatisfaction with the extent of instruction in both preclinical (73.7%) and clinical (75.3%) settings. However, 78.9% reported feeling sufficiently confident to use digital workflows. CONCLUSION: Chairside CAD/CAM technology is widely utilized in undergraduate dental education in Finland; however, perceived gaps in teaching structure and instructional support remain. Strengthening structured training and ensuring adequate instructional competence may improve educational outcomes in digital dentistry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Orhanen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: