I have all the data from the 9 screenshots. Let me now compose the full write-up.
Based on the Google Form survey data across all 9 screenshots, here is a comprehensive analysis write-up in Vancouver style to support your rationale for choosing this PhD thesis topic:
Analysis of a Preliminary Cross-Sectional Survey on Awareness of Types of Occlusal Splints Among Dental Professionals: Rationale for PhD Thesis Topic Selection
1. Introduction
Occlusal splints are widely documented removable dental appliances fabricated to interface with the occlusal surfaces of either arch, employed primarily in the management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders, bruxism, and occlusal instability.1 Despite their established role in prosthodontics and occlusal rehabilitation, the breadth and depth of clinicians' awareness of the diverse types of occlusal splints — and the indications distinguishing one from another — remains incompletely characterised in the published literature. To establish a preliminary evidence base and justify the need for a formal doctoral investigation, a structured Google Form survey titled "A Study on Awareness of Types of Occlusal Splints" was distributed to dental professionals. A total of 105 responses were collected. The following section presents an analysis of those results, with the findings forming the primary rationale for this PhD thesis proposal.
2. Methodology
A cross-sectional, self-administered electronic questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms to dental professionals across clinical settings. The survey instrument comprised items covering: (i) demographic and professional background; (ii) awareness and familiarity with occlusal splint types; (iii) clinical prescribing behaviour; and (iv) formal education and continuing professional development (CPD) in occlusal splint therapy. Data were summarised as frequencies and percentages.
3. Results
3.1 Respondent Demographics
3.1.1 Professional Category
Of the 103 respondents who answered the profession question, the majority were dental specialists (e.g., prosthodontists, orthodontists), comprising 52.4% of the sample. General dentists accounted for 31.1%, general dental practitioners for 12.6%, while smaller proportions identified as interns, endodontists, and periodontists (collectively under 5%). This distribution indicates a predominantly specialist-led sample, lending clinical credibility to the responses while also raising questions about whether awareness findings would differ in a broader, general-practice population.
3.1.2 Years of Clinical Experience
Of the 104 respondents who completed this question, the largest single group reported fewer than 5 years of clinical experience (36.5%), followed by those with 11–20 years (25%), 5–10 years (24%), and more than 20 years (14.4%). The relatively young experiential profile of this cohort is noteworthy: over one-third are early-career practitioners, suggesting that gaps in awareness may reflect deficiencies in undergraduate or early postgraduate training rather than the erosion of knowledge over time.
3.2 Awareness of Occlusal Splints
3.2.1 General Awareness
When asked "Have you heard of occlusal splints?", 98% of the 102 respondents answered affirmatively, with fewer than 2% reporting no awareness. While this near-universal recognition at the terminological level is encouraging, awareness of the term alone does not equate to differentiated knowledge of splint types, indications, or clinical selection criteria — a critical distinction motivating deeper investigation.
3.2.2 Familiarity with Specific Splint Types
A multiple-response item asked respondents to identify which types of occlusal splints they were familiar with (103 responses). Results were as follows:
| Splint Type | Respondents Familiar (n) | Percentage (%) |
|---|
| Stabilisation splint | 79 | 76.7 |
| Anterior repositioning splint | 67 | 65.0 |
| Soft splint | 51 | 49.5 |
| Pivotal splint | 22 | 21.4 |
| Deprogramming splint | 3 | 2.9 |
| Others (for MPDS pain, all of the above, orthodontic splint) | 1 each | 1.0 |
The stabilisation splint and anterior repositioning splint were the most recognised types, consistent with their prominence in postgraduate prosthodontic and TMJ curricula.2 However, the pivotal splint was familiar to only 21.4% of respondents, and the deprogramming splint to fewer than 3%, despite both having documented applications in occlusal therapy.3 These figures highlight a selective and uneven pattern of familiarity that warrants systematic investigation.
3.3 Perceived Purpose of Occlusal Splints
Respondents were asked to select the primary purpose of occlusal splints (104 responses). The most frequently cited purpose was TMJ disorder management (40.4%), followed by occlusal stabilisation (37.5%) and bruxism management (18.3%). A very small proportion selected composite responses such as "all of the above" (collectively under 5%). The divergence in perceived primary purpose among clinicians — particularly the split between TMJ management and occlusal stabilisation — reflects an ambiguity in clinical understanding that has direct implications for prescribing behaviour and patient outcomes. This conceptual disparity forms a core justification for a PhD-level inquiry into how clinicians cognitively categorise and select splint therapies.
3.4 Clinical Prescribing Behaviour
3.4.1 Frequency of Recommendation
When asked how often they recommend occlusal splints for patients with TMJ disorders or bruxism (104 responses), 42.3% reported recommending splints occasionally, 31.7% frequently, 21.2% rarely, and approximately 5–6% never. The fact that nearly one-quarter of responding clinicians rarely or never recommend splints — despite high nominal awareness of the modality — suggests that knowledge of occlusal splints does not reliably translate into clinical utilisation. This practice-knowledge gap is a critical finding that a PhD investigation could further explore through qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
3.4.2 Type Most Commonly Used in Practice
Of the 99 respondents who answered this item, the stabilisation splint was most commonly used (49.5%), followed by the soft splint (25.3%) and the anterior repositioning splint (24.2%). This concentration of practice around a single splint type — despite the availability and documented efficacy of multiple alternatives — may reflect training bias, laboratory access limitations, or a lack of confidence in diagnosing conditions requiring other splint modalities.4
3.5 Education and Training
3.5.1 Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training Exposure
Of the 104 respondents addressing education during dental training, 56.7% reported having received formal education on occlusal splints, while 43.3% had not. This means that nearly half of the surveyed dental workforce entered practice without formal didactic exposure to occlusal splint therapy during their foundational training — a finding of considerable concern given the frequency with which TMJ disorders and bruxism are encountered in routine dental practice.5
3.5.2 Continuing Education Attendance
When asked whether they had attended continuing education courses or workshops specifically on occlusal splints (104 responses), 63.5% had not, and only 36.5% had. This data point reinforces the training gap identified above: the majority of dental professionals in this sample have neither received formal undergraduate training on occlusal splints nor supplemented this through CPD activities. This finding constitutes the most compelling argument in this dataset for the proposed PhD thesis, as it points to a systemic deficiency in professional education that a doctoral-level intervention study or curriculum analysis could meaningfully address.
4. Discussion and Justification for PhD Thesis Topic
The collective findings of this preliminary survey reveal several convergent themes that justify a formal doctoral investigation:
i. High nominal awareness, low differentiated knowledge. Near-universal familiarity with the term "occlusal splint" coexists with markedly uneven recognition of specific splint types, particularly the pivotal and deprogramming splints. A PhD thesis could investigate the cognitive frameworks dental professionals use when selecting splints and whether deficits correlate with patient outcomes.
ii. Conceptual ambiguity regarding clinical purpose. No consensus emerged on the primary indication for occlusal splints, with the sample divided across TMJ management, occlusal stabilisation, and bruxism. This ambiguity has direct clinical relevance, as incorrect splint selection for a given diagnosis may provide no therapeutic benefit or cause harm.6
iii. A significant practice-knowledge gap. One-quarter of respondents rarely or never recommend splints despite high awareness. A PhD study could explore the barriers — whether knowledge-based, attitudinal, or structural — that prevent evidence-based prescribing.
iv. Substantial educational deficits. With 43.3% lacking formal training and 63.5% having no CPD exposure, there is a clear mandate for curricular reform. A doctoral thesis could design, implement, and evaluate an educational intervention — or provide the data necessary to inform policy change in dental curricula.
These findings collectively demonstrate that the selected thesis topic — awareness and application of occlusal splint types among dental professionals — is not only clinically relevant but addresses a documented and measurable gap in both knowledge and practice. The preliminary survey data provide the empirical grounding needed to frame research questions, justify a sample size calculation, and design a rigorous mixed-methods doctoral study.
5. Conclusion
This preliminary analysis of 105 dental professional responses provides robust justification for undertaking a PhD thesis on the awareness and clinical utilisation of occlusal splint types. The data reveal an uneven knowledge landscape, conceptual divergence on clinical purpose, a substantial practice-knowledge gap, and significant deficiencies in both undergraduate and continuing education. These findings establish the intellectual and clinical imperative for doctoral-level investigation of this subject.
References
-
Turp JC, Jokstad A, Motschall E, Schindler HJ, Windecker-Getaz I, Ettlin DA. Is there a superiority of multimodal as opposed to simple therapy in patients with temporomandibular disorders? A qualitative systematic review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:138–50.
-
Klasser GD, Greene CS. Oral appliances in the management of temporomandibular disorders. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(2):212–23.
-
Okeson JP. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion. 8th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2019.
-
Fricton J, Look JO, Wright E, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating intraoral orthopedic appliances for temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 2010;24(3):237–54.
-
Leeuw R, Klasser GD, eds. Orofacial Pain: Guidelines for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Management. 6th ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2018.
-
Jokstad A, Mo A, Krogstad BS. Clinical comparison between two different splint designs for temporomandibular disorder therapy. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005;63(4):218–26.
This write-up is formatted in accordance with the Vancouver referencing style, with in-text citations presented as superscript numerals corresponding to a consecutively numbered reference list.