Costa Rica survey finds dental specialists know bioactive materials better
A peer-reviewed survey of 240 dentists in Costa Rica found stronger understanding of bioactive dental materials among paediatric specialists than general dentists. These materials interact with tooth tissues rather than only replacing missing structure. The voluntary online survey also found differences in reported use, but it describes respondents rather than a nationally representative sample or patient outcomes.
Science··Midday
Specialists identified the materials more accurately
A peer-reviewed survey in Costa Rica found a difference between dental specialties in understanding bioactive materials, which interact with tooth tissue and can release ions. Among 240 responding dentists, roughly nine in ten paediatric specialists chose the correct definition, compared with about three quarters of general dentists. The cross-sectional study, published in BDJ Open, included 185 general dentists and 55 paediatric dentists. It examined practitioners’ knowledge and reported habits, rather than patients receiving treatment.[1]
Use and training differed
About two thirds of respondents said they used bioactive materials. The groups were similar in whether they used the materials at all; children’s specialists, however, used them more often. Glass ionomer was the most commonly reported material among users. Many respondents described their training as only partly adequate or inadequate, while others said the term bioactive had not featured in their education. Statistical adjustment for measured personal and practice characteristics left an association between specialty and understanding.[1]
Volunteers answered an online questionnaire
The questionnaire ran during August and September 2025 and relied on voluntary responses. Dentists around the Central Valley and San José were overrepresented, and participants interested in newer materials may have been especially willing to reply. These features limit national generalisation. Because the survey captured one period, it leaves the effects of specialist training and the consequences for patients unmeasured.[1]
