Factors associated with the level of knowledge about CAD/CAM use among Peruvian dental students

The use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) enables a faster and more flexible workflow, reducing costs and work time. This study aimed to determine factors associated with the level of knowledge about CAD/CAM use among Peruvian dental students. This analytical, cross-sectional, observational study assessed 301 Peruvian dental students between March and April 2025 using a CAD/CAM knowledge questionnaire. A multivariable Poisson regression model with robust variance was fitted to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) for the association between knowledge level and sex, age, year of study, marital status, place of origin, occupation, and prior CAD/CAM training. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. When summarized using prespecified descriptive score groupings, 14.0% (95% CI: 10.0-17.9%) of students fell into the poor range, 66.4% (95% CI 61.1-71.8%) into the fair range, and 19.6% (95% CI 15.1-24.1%) into the good range regarding CAD/CAM use. Item-level findings were examined for descriptive and exploratory purposes and suggested frequent misconceptions, particularly concerning the complete elimination of physical impressions and the materials compatible with the system. In the adjusted analysis, third-year students showed a higher prevalence of belonging to the poor score grouping for CAD/CAM knowledge than fifth-year students (APR = 2.54; 95% CI 1.27-5.12). No significant associations were observed for age group, sex, marital status, place of origin, occupation, or prior CAD/CAM training. Dental students showed relevant knowledge gaps regarding CAD/CAM, with frequent misconceptions and a predominance of scores in the fair descriptive range. Third-year students showed a higher prevalence of belonging to the poor score grouping for CAD/CAM knowledge than fifth-year students, whereas demographic variables and prior training were not significantly associated; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the preliminary measurement evidence and because the score groupings were used solely as operational, descriptive categories within this study rather than as validated or competency-based thresholds.