Knowledge and clinical use of bioactive dental materials among a sample of general and paediatric dentists in Costa Rica: a cross-sectional study

Background Understanding how dentists perceive and integrate bioactive dental materials into clinical practice is important to identify potential gaps between knowledge and use. Objective To assess knowledge, conceptual understanding, and clinical use of bioactive dental materials among general dentists and paediatric dentists in Costa Rica. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 240 licensed dentists (185 general dentists and 55 paediatric dentists) using a self-administered online questionnaire. The instrument assessed sociodemographic characteristics, familiarity with bioactivity concepts, recognition of bioactive materials, and patterns of clinical use. Topical fluoride agents were included to explore potential conceptual ambiguity. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using appropriate bivariate tests and multivariable logistic regression models. Results Overall, 84.2% of participants reported familiarity with bioactivity. Paediatric dentists showed higher familiarity than general dentists (98.2% vs. 80.0%; p = 0.001), greater accuracy in identifying the correct definition (92.7% vs. 74.6%), and higher self-perceived knowledge (44.4% vs. 22.3%; p = 0.002). Bioactive materials were used by 65.3% of respondents, with paediatric dentists reporting a higher frequency of use ( p = 0.027). After adjustment for age, sex, geographic practice location, and public-sector involvement, paediatric dentists had higher odds of correctly identifying the definition of a bioactive material (aOR = 4.98; 95% CI: 1.57–15.74; p = 0.006) and of using bioactive materials in at least 25% of clinical cases (aOR = 3.26; 95% CI: 1.38–7.69; p = 0.007). Conclusions Knowledge and clinical use of bioactive dental materials differed between general dentists and paediatric dentists. Paediatric dentists demonstrated greater conceptual understanding and more frequent use, which may reflect differences in postgraduate training and clinical exposure.