Objectives: To develop and validate a questionnaire on dental students' self-efficacy with tooth removal, suitable for measuring the effectiveness of training methods. Methods: To prepare and validate this questionnaire, we used the Association of Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) stepwise guide for developing questionnaires for educational research. In the validation process, our study group conducted two pilot studies, the first for an exploratory factor analysis and the second for a confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the questionnaire was tested for convergence with the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-Personality Inventory. Results: After an exploratory factor analysis, which used a total of 137 responses on 33 items, 15 items were left for confirmatory factor analysis. A total of 118 responses were available for the confirmatory factor analysis. Model fitness was tested using tests for exact fitness and fit indices such as the goodness of fit index (GFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR). An acceptable fit was found for 11 items divided over three factors: ‘self-perceived skill’, ‘tension’ and ‘dedication’. These 11 items did not converge with the neuroticism scale. Conclusion: This study showed the development steps and initial validation of a psychometric instrument, the Amsterdam Self-Efficacy Scale for Tooth Removal (ASES-TR), consisting of 11 items for testing dental students' self-efficacy in performing tooth removal procedures.

Objectives: To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of physical robot initiatives in all fields of dentistry. Data: Articles published since 1985 concerning primary data on physical robot technology in dentistry were selected. Characteristics of the papers were extracted such as the respective field of dentistry, year of publication as well as a description of its usage. Sources: Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched. A hand search through reference lists of all included articles was performed. Study selection: The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. All types of scientific literature in all languages were included concerning fields of dentistry ranging from student training to implantology. Robot technology solely for the purpose of research and maxillofacial surgery were excluded. In total, 94 articles were included in this systematic review. Conclusions: This study provides a systematic overview of initiatives using robot technology in dentistry since its very beginning. While there were many interesting robot initiatives reported, the overall quality of the literature, in terms of clinical validation, is low. Scientific evidence regarding the benefits, results and cost-efficiency of commercially available robotic solutions in dentistry is lacking. The rise in availability of open source control systems, compliant robot systems and the design of dentistry-specific robot technology might facilitate the process of technological development in the near future. The authors are confident that robotics will provide useful solutions in the future but, strongly, encourage an evidence-based approach when adapting to new (robot) technology.

Objectives: To provide dental practitioners and researchers with a comprehensive and transparent evidence-based overview of the characteristics of literature regarding initiatives of robot technology in dentistry. Data: All articles in which robot technology in dentistry is described, except for non-scientific articles and articles containing secondary data (reviews). Amongst others, the following data were extracted: type of study, level of technological readiness, authors’ professional background and the subject of interaction with the robot. Sources: Bibliographic databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were surveyed. A reference search was conducted. The search timeline was between January 1985 and October 2020. Study selection: A total of 911 articles were screened on title and abstract of which 161 deemed eligible for inclusion. Another 71 articles were excluded mainly because of unavailability of full texts or the sole use of secondary data (reviews). Four articles were included after hand searching the reference lists. In total, 94 articles were included for analysis. Conclusions: Since 2013 an average of six articles per year concern robot initiatives in dentistry, mostly originating from East Asia (57%). The vast majority of research was categorized as either basic theoretical or basic applied research (80%). Technology readiness levels did not reach higher than three (proof of concept) in 55% of all articles. In 84%, the first author of the included articles had a technical background and in 36%, none of the authors had a dental or medical background. The overall quality of literature, especially in terms of clinical validation, should be considered as low.