Occupational injuries in dental training arise from frequent use of needles and sharp instruments and contact with potentially hazardous materials. Evidence based on institutional incident-report systems remains limited in Türkiye. We aimed to describe the frequency, characteristics, and management of reported occupational incidents across training stages and professional roles in a dental school. This retrospective, descriptive study analyzed occupational incident reports recorded in the institutional i-DEAL occupational safety reporting system between January 2023 and September 2025. Data were extracted from occupational incident notification forms within the i-DEAL reporting system originating from preclinical laboratories, clinical units, and the central sterilization unit. Key variables included the type of incident (percutaneous vs. mucocutaneous/ocular), instrument involved, contamination status, anatomical site, and post-exposure management procedures. Statistical analyses were performed using the Pearson chi-square test or the Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact test, as appropriate. A total of 122 incidents were analyzed. Most were percutaneous sharps injuries (84.4%), with needlestick injuries being the most common mechanism (31.1%). Contaminated exposures accounted for 78.7% of incidents. Subgroup analyses suggested between-group variation in incident type, mechanism, and department across training levels ( p ≤ 0.006). Notably, preclinical students had a higher proportion of mucocutaneous/ocular exposures and no recorded needlestick injuries, while clinical students and professionals predominantly experienced percutaneous injuries. Incident-report data from a dental school show that percutaneous sharps injuries dominate reported occupational incidents, while mucocutaneous/ocular exposures, particularly ocular events, are relatively prominent in preclinical settings. Prevention efforts should be tailored to training stage and clinical context, emphasizing early and repeated safety education, safer needle-handling workflows, consistent eye protection from the preclinical phase, and streamlined reporting and post-exposure follow-up. Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Az et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: