An assessment of Turkish dental students’ attitudes career intentions and perceptions regarding specialist training

Abstract

Background

Career choice is critical for an individual’s professional success and job satisfaction, as it is influenced by various factors such as job security, personal skills, and financial expectations. This study aimed to assess dental students’ attitudes, awareness, and career expectations regarding specialist training in Türkiye, and to identify factors influencing their professional development.

Methods

A total of 702 participants took part in the study, comprising 478 women and 224 men. A 20-question questionnaire was developed for the study, and each participant was permitted to complete it only once. The questionnaire consisted of three sections: Sect.  1: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Sect.  2: Attitudes Towards Specialty Training, Sect.  3: Preferences for Specialty Fields. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The vast majority of dental students (84.6%) stated that they intended to specialise. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics were the most popular specialisations. Gender influenced the choice of specialisation. Participants reported that specialisation was associated with higher earning potential (89.8%) and better career prospects (87.9%).

Conclusion

The majority of dental students in Türkiye consider specialist training an essential step in their careers. Financial incentives and job security appear to be the main driving factors, with Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics emerging as the most popular specialties.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-026-09581-1.

Background

Dentistry is a comprehensive education that combines professional knowledge with clinical skills and instills the values befitting the title of dentist [1]. An undergraduate degree confers fundamental knowledge and experience upon students. In addressing the dental health needs of the general public, complex cases necessitate specialized techniques and competencies, which may be beyond the scope of general dental training. Specialist training in dentistry facilitates the effective management of treatment processes through precise diagnoses [2, 3]. Undergraduate dental education in Türkiye lasts five years. Applications to all higher education institutions in Türkiye are made via an annual centralised university entrance examination. Following the examination, students are allocated to institutions based on their scores. Those wishing to enter a faculty of dentistry are expected to achieve a minimum score [4]. According to the data, 7,158 dentists graduated in Türkiye in 2024 [5]. Law No. 6225, published in the Official Gazette in 2011, officially defined the specialist fields within dentistry, including Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthodontics, Endodontics, Paediatric Dentistry, Periodontology, Restorative Dentistry, and Orthodontics. This regulatory framework formalized specialist training as an essential component of dental education in Türkiye, coinciding with a notable increase in the number of dental faculties, which currently total 105, of which 93 are operational and 12 are in the process of establishing academic infrastructure [6].

In recent years, a significant number of new dental faculties have been established, and a considerable number of dentists graduate each year. The present situation has resulted in an increase in the number of candidates who are taking the Dental Specialization Examination (DSE) with the intention of pursuing specialist training. This has led to the creation of a competitive environment. Concurrently, private training centers have become increasingly prevalent, offering specialized programs to prepare students for the DSE. Dental graduates have the option of pursuing a professional career in private practice or in private or public hospitals. Alternatively, they may opt for an academic career by undertaking specialist training [7].

An individual’s career choice is influenced by a multitude of factors, including working conditions, the extent to which the profession involves interaction with people, personal skills, an interest in research, job security, and income level [8, 9]. The selection of a suitable career path is inextricably linked to professional success and job satisfaction. Healthcare career choices are influenced by country, society, culture, and individual preferences. The decision to pursue a career in dentistry is not one to be taken lightly. A multitude of factors must be considered, including but not limited to the desire to assist others, the nature of the work environment, financial expectations, gender, and personality traits [7, 10, 11].

Studies have examined the views of the healthcare community on specialties within dentistry [12, 13]. Few studies have been conducted on the career plans and specialization preferences of dental students. The majority of extant studies have been conducted with small sample sizes [14–17]. These studies have not assessed multiple influencing factors simultaneously in a comprehensive manner. In particular, large-scale studies examining dental students’ specialisation preferences within the same analytical framework are lacking. Such studies should take into account gender differences, year of study and perceived career motivations. Additionally, there is a shortage of data reflecting Türkiye’s rapidly changing educational landscape, including the growing number of dental faculties and graduates. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of dental students’ attitudes towards specialist training and their awareness is warranted. This study may help identify how well faculties prepare and encourage students to specialise, thereby contributing to necessary changes in the curriculum and specialisation quota planning.

This study aims to address these gaps by presenting an up to date, large scale, multidimensional analysis of dental students’ attitudes, awareness, and specialisation preferences. The study will focus particularly on gender-based differences and variations across academic years. This will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that shape dental students’ decisions about specialisation.

Methods

This study is a cross-sectional survey. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Non-Interventional Clinical Research at Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University (Ethics No: 17/2026), and it was conducted in accordance with ethical principles. The survey questions were prepared taking into account studies found in the literature [7, 16, 17]. Prior to the main study, the survey questions were assessed by a second expert for comprehensibility and reliability. It was a three-stage validation process. First, survey questions were formulated based on previous studies and career choice theories in dentistry. Second, to establish content validity, these questions were presented to a panel of two independent experts. They evaluated each item for relevance, clarity, and representativeness using a qualitative feedback loop. Third, to ensure face validity, a pilot study was conducted with 25 dental students across various academic years. During this phase, participants were invited to identify any ambiguous terminology or double-barreled questions. Based on their feedback, the wording of three items specifically related to specialty preferences was refined to maximize clarity. To prevent potential bias, these 25 participants were excluded from the final study sample. Following the full administration of the survey, the internal consistency of the 8-item Likert scale was evaluated. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated based on the main study dataset to ensure statistical robustness, yielding a value that confirmed a reliable scale structure. The study population comprised first- through fifth-year students currently enrolled in dental faculties in Türkiye. Inclusion was restricted to students who met the enrollment criteria and volunteered to participate. Ultimately, the final sample consisted of those who provided informed consent and completed the questionnaire in its entirety.

The data was collected via a web based survey form (Google Forms). On the first page of the questionnaire, participants were informed of the study’s purpose and scope, and that participation was voluntary. They were also informed that the data collected would be used solely for scientific purposes. Informed consent was obtained via a statement on the first page of the questionnaire, and participants were required to select the ‘I agree’ option to proceed. Those who did not give their consent were unable to access or continue with the questionnaire. No personally identifiable information was requested, and all data was collected anonymously. The survey link was sent to students via the class representatives in dental faculties in Türkiye. The ‘Limit to one response’ option was enabled to ensure that participants only provide one response. Participants were required to sign in with their Google accounts to ensure that only one response was received from each user. The survey was open for responses from January to February of 2026.

The sample consisted of voluntary first, second, third, fourth and fifth year students enrolled at dental faculties in Türkiye. In the data analysis, the ‘academic year’ was used as a stratifying factor representing different levels of clinical exposure. Students were categorized by their year of study, which in the current curriculum serves as a proxy for clinical experience: years 1–3 represent the pre-clinical phase, while years 4–5 represent the clinical phase. This stratification was considered in the analysis to capture how increasing clinical exposure and hands-on experience influence students’ shifts in specialty preferences.

A convenience sampling method was employed to recruit participants. To ensure national reach, the survey was distributed in coordination with class representatives from 13 different dental faculties located in various regions of Türkiye. Despite the sample being collected from these 13 centers, the institution name was not requested on the survey form to maintain participant anonymity and prevent the ‘social desirability bias’ that could arise from institutional pressure.

This approach was chosen to facilitate a broad geographical reach and ensure diverse representation from various dental faculties. This technique was selected to facilitate rapid and broad access to dental students from all academic years (1st to 5th year) during the data collection period. Despite the non-probability nature of this sampling method, the high response rate and diversity of the participant pool from different faculties enhance the representativeness of the findings.

The survey is composed of 20 questions. The first section of the text provides an overview of the sociodemographic characteristics of the population under study. The second section offers an analysis of the attitudes towards professional training. The third section presents a study of the preferences regarding professional specializations. The independent variables (sociodemographic characteristics) were assessed through multiple-choice questions in the first section. The primary dependent variable (intention to specialize) and related attitudes were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5). Other secondary dependent variables, such as specific specialty preferences and influential factors, were assessed through categorical selection questions, where participants identified their primary choices among the eight recognized dental specialties in Türkiye. Overall, the primary outcome variable was the participants’ willingness to pursue specialist training in dentistry (measured via a 5-point Likert scale). The secondary outcome variables included the specific choices of specialty fields (e.g., Orthodontics, OMS) and the importance of various factors (e.g., financial income, patient care, academic environment) influencing these career decisions.

The scale assessing students’ attitudes toward specialty training using eight specific Likert-scale items. These items were designed to evaluate various dimensions of career planning, including: intention to specialize (e.g., ‘I am considering specializing in the field of dentistry’), perceived adequacy of undergraduate education for the specialization exam (e.g., ‘I believe that the undergraduate education provided in the faculty is oriented toward the specialization examination’), the necessity of private preparatory courses, factors influencing the choice of specialty (e.g., ‘The choice of university is an important factor in my selection of dental specialty training.’), and career expectations regarding academic roles (e.g., ‘I believe that specialist dentists find employment more easily than general dentists.’) and job security (e.g., ‘I believe that specialist dentists have higher income levels compared to general dentists.’). The full distribution of responses for each of these eight items is detailed in Table 2. The internal consistency of the 8-item Likert-scale instrument used in Sect.  2 was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .78, indicating a good level of internal reliability. This study was reported in accordance with the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines.

Table 2.

Distribution of participants’ responses regarding their willingness to specialize

Statement	Response	n	%
I am considering specializing in the field of dentistry.	Strongly disagree	9	1.3
	Disagree	17	2.4
	Neutral	82	11.7
	Agree	233	33.2
	Strongly agree	361	51.4
I believe that the undergraduate education provided in the faculty is oriented toward the specialization examination.	Strongly disagree	44	6.3
	Disagree	116	16.5
	Neutral	323	46.0
	Agree	177	25.2
	Strongly agree	42	6.0
I believe that attending a private preparatory course is necessary to prepare for the specialization examination.	Strongly disagree	40	5.7
	Disagree	68	9.7
	Neutral	191	27.2
	Agree	226	32.2
	Strongly agree	177	25.2
The choice of university is an important factor in my selection of dental specialty training.	Strongly disagree	33	4.7
	Disagree	86	12.3
	Neutral	176	25.1
	Agree	246	35.0
	Strongly agree	161	22.9
The choice of specialty field is an important factor in my selection of dental specialty training.	Strongly disagree	12	1.7
	Disagree	24	3.4
	Neutral	115	16.4
	Agree	271	38.6
	Strongly agree	280	39.9
The choice of city is an important factor in my selection of dental specialty training.	Strongly disagree	38	5.4
	Disagree	81	11.5
	Neutral	203	28.9
	Agree	216	30.8
	Strongly agree	164	23.4
I believe that specialist dentists find employment more easily than general dentists.	Strongly disagree	10	1.4
	Disagree	12	1.7
	Neutral	63	9.0
	Agree	188	26.8
	Strongly agree	429	61.1
I believe that specialist dentists have higher income levels compared to general dentists.	Strongly disagree	7	1.0
	Disagree	9	1.3
	Neutral	56	8.0
	Agree	162	23.1
	Strongly agree	468	66.7

Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Percentages refer to the proportion of the total sample (n = 702) for each item. The internal consistency of the items was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of .78

Statistical analysis

The analyses were conducted using SPSS 27.0, and a p-value < .05 was considered statistically significant. Prior to the analyses, the data were prepared, and it was determined that there were no missing values or outliers in the data, in accordance with the criteria established by Çokluk et al. [18]. The distributional properties of the data were evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which indicated that the scores significantly deviated from a normal distribution (p < .05). Additionally, since the attitudes toward specialization were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, the data were ordinal in nature and exhibited a pronounced negative skew, with a high concentration of responses in the ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ categories. Therefore, non-parametric methods were preferred to ensure the robustness and validity of the statistical inferences [19]. The statistical approach was structured according to the measurement scale of the variables. For the categorical data obtained from multiple-choice questions (e.g., specialty preferences and sociodemographic distributions), frequency (n) and percentage (%) were reported, and associations were examined using the Pearson Chi-square test or Monte Carlo simulation (95% confidence interval, 10,000 samples) where the proportion of cells with expected values less than 5 exceeded 20% in the cross-tabulations. For the ordinal data derived from the 5-point Likert-scale questions regarding attitudes, central tendency was represented by mean ranks due to the non-normal distribution. Consequently, the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were employed to compare these ordinal attitudes across independent groups [20]. For all inferential tests, the complete set of statistical parameters, including the specific test statistics (Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis H, and Pearson χ²) and exact p-values, were calculated and presented in the findings section and respective tables.

Finally, correspondence analysis was utilized to visually map the multivariate associations between categorical year of study and specialty preferences. This methodological approach serves to enhance the comprehensibility of these relationships by reducing the dimensionality of the data. In the analysis, the ‘academic year’ and ‘preferred specialty field’ were defined as row and column variables, respectively. The dimensionality of the correspondence map was determined based on the total inertia explained, with the first two dimensions being retained as they accounted for the cumulative variance sufficient to represent the associations. This enabled a symmetrical normalization approach to visualize the proximities between different academic years and specific dental specialties in a two-dimensional Euclidean space.

Results

A total of 946 dental students were sent survey invitations, of which 709 participated, resulting in a response rate of 74.9%. The returned surveys were assessed for data quality. Surveys containing missing data were excluded from the study. Seven questionnaires with missing data were excluded from the study. Analyses were therefore conducted on the final sample size of n = 702. It was determined that the missing data points had been systematically left blank and were therefore excluded from the analysis. These data points were removed from the dataset. The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The distribution of the participants’ responses to questions regarding their intentions to specialize in dentistry is summarized in Table 2. Consequently, 84.6% of students (n = 594) indicated their consideration of specialization. A significant proportion of the participants (46.0%, n = 323) harbor skepticism regarding the alignment of the undergraduate program offered by the faculty with the objectives of the DSE. A survey of 403 participants revealed that 57.4% of them believe that private training institutions are necessary for the specialization exam. The analysis indicates that departmental preference constitutes a primary factor influencing the selection of specialization (78.5%, n = 551). Subsequent to these factors, university preference emerged as a significant consideration, with 57.9% of respondents (n = 407) expressing their preference for a university. This was closely followed by city preference, which accounted for 54.2% of respondents (n = 380). The predominant opinion among the participants is that specialization leads to increased income levels (89.8%, n = 630) and facilitates job placement (87.9%, n = 617).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants

Variable	Category	n	%
Gender	Female	478	68.1
	Male	224	31.9
Academic Year	1st year	78	11.1
	2nd year	213	30.3
	3rd year	206	29.3
	4th year	116	16.5
	5th year	89	12.7
Father’s Educational Level	High school or below	357	50.9
	Bachelor’s degree or higher	345	49.1
Mother’s Educational Level	High school or below	476	67.8
	Bachelor’s degree or higher	226	32.2
Father’s Occupation	Civil servant	212	30.2
	Worker/Laborer	85	12.1
	Self-employed/Tradesman	72	10.3
	Other	115	16.4
	Unemployed or Retired	218	31.1
Mother’s Occupation	Civil servant	107	15.2
	Worker/Laborer	35	5.0
	Self-employed/Other	45	6.4
	Homemaker or Retired	515	73.4
Type of High School Graduated From	General high school	28	4.0
	Anatolian high school	357	50.9
	Science high school	263	37.5
	Private school	54	7.7

Percentages are calculated based on the total valid sample size (n=702). All demographic data were collected using a single-response format

The Mann-Whitney U test revealed that female students’ intentions to specialize in dentistry (Rank Sum (RS) = 371.31) were significantly higher than those of male students (RS = 309.22) (U = 44066; z = -4.219; p < 0.001). However, these findings are not applicable to the father’s educational level (U = 57,379; z = − 1.722; p = 0.085) or the mother’s educational level (U = 52,851; z = − 0.411; p = 0.681). The relevant results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Comparison of participants’ willingness to specialize according to sociodemographic characteristics

Variable	Group	n	Mean Rank	Test Statistic	p-value
I am considering specializing in the field of dentistry	Gender			U = 44,066.00	< 0.001
	Female	478	371.31
	Male	224	309.22
	Father’s Education			U = 57,379.00	0.085
	High school or below	357	339.73
	High school or above	345	363.68
	Mother’s Education			U = 52,851.00	0.681
	High school or below	476	349.33
	High school or above	226	355.65
	Academic Year			H = 3.169	0.530
	1st year	78	376.34
	2nd year	213	345.32
	3rd year	206	356.16
	4th year	116	355.19
	5th year	89	328.93
	Father’s Occupation			H = 10.500	0.033
	Civil servant	212	371.97
	Worker/Laborer	85	387.85
	Self-employed/Tradesman	72	320.46
	Other	115	330.58
	Unemployed or retired	218	338.70
	Mother’s Occupation			H = 6.316	0.097
	Civil servant	107	368.08
	Worker/Laborer	35	411.69
	Self-employed/Other	45	319.22
	Homemaker or retired	515	346.79
	Type of High School Graduated From			H = 4.133	0.247
	General high school	28	292.68
	Anatolian high school	357	360.75
	Science high school	263	344.61
	Private school	54	354.44

Non-parametric tests were used for group comparisons (Mann-Whitney U for two groups; Kruskal-Wallis H for three or more groups). Exact p-values are provided for all comparisons. Percentages are calculated within each respective row/category

The most frequently selected specialization among participants was Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, with 32.9% of the participants (n = 231) indicating this preference. Subsequent to this, 32.1% of the participants (n = 225) selected Orthodontics as their preferred specialization. While a significant proportion of students indicated that Orthodontics would offer the most substantial financial return (46.9%, n = 329), the field considered most critical for patient care was Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (35.2%, n = 247). The majority of participants (70.9%, n = 498) believed that the risk of complications was highest in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The relevant results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Distribution of participants’ responses regarding dental specialty preferences

Question	Specialty Field	n	%
Which dental specialty would you prefer to pursue?	Orthodontics	225	32.1
	Endodontics	36	5.1
	Periodontology	38	5.4
	Prosthodontics	76	10.8
	Restorative Dentistry	31	4.4
	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	231	32.9
	Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology	16	2.3
	Paediatric Dentistry	49	7.0
Which specialty field do you think provides the highest financial income?	Orthodontics	329	46.9
	Endodontics	6	0.9
	Periodontology	4	0.6
	Prosthodontics	125	17.8
	Restorative Dentistry	0	0.0
	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	226	32.2
	Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology	2	0.3
	Paediatric Dentistry	10	1.4
Which specialty field do you consider the most important in terms of patient care?	Orthodontics	40	5.7
	Endodontics	84	12.0
	Periodontology	71	10.1
	Prosthodontics	91	13.0
	Restorative Dentistry	52	7.4
	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	247	35.2
	Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology	44	6.3
	Paediatric Dentistry	73	10.4
Which specialty field do you think carries the highest risk of complications?	Orthodontics	9	1.3
	Endodontics	140	19.9
	Periodontology	13	1.9
	Prosthodontics	15	2.1
	Restorative Dentistry	7	1.0
	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	498	70.9
	Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology	8	1.1
	Paediatric Dentistry	12	1.7

Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents in each column, representing the distribution of specialty preferences within each group

The relationship between students’ choice of specialization and their gender was examined using the Pearson chi-square test. The analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship of high magnitude between gender and the chosen specialization (χ²(7) = 45.345; p < 0.001). The Cramer’s V coefficient (0.254), which serves as a measure of the strength of the relationship, indicates that gender plays a moderate role in determining specialization choice. A subsequent examination of the distribution of specializations by gender revealed that male students most frequently selected Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (43.3%), while this proportion remained at 28% among female students. In contrast, the most popular choice among female students was Orthodontics, with 37% of the female student population selecting this option. Furthermore, the data revealed a significant gender disparity, with the Paediatric Dentistry speciality being chosen by women (9.4%) approximately five times more frequently than by men (1.8%). In the field of Endodontics, the interest levels were found to be higher among men (8.5%) compared to women (3.6%) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Distribution of specialty preferences according to gender

Specialty Preference	Female (n = 478)	Male (n = 224)
Orthodontics	37.0% (n = 177)	21.4% (n = 48)
Endodontics	3.6% (n = 17)	8.5% (n = 19)
Periodontology	5.6% (n = 27)	4.9% (n = 11)
Prosthodontics	10.3% (n = 49)	12.1% (n = 27)
Restorative Dentistry	4.4% (n = 21)	4.5% (n = 10)
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	28.0% (n = 134)	43.3% (n = 97)
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology	1.7% (n = 8)	3.6% (n = 8)
Paediatric Dentistry	9.4% (n = 45)	1.8% (n = 4)

Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents within each row. Statistical significance was determined using the Chi-square (χ²) test for categorical comparisons

The results of the correspondence analysis, conducted to examine the relationship between the participants’ year of study and their preferred specialization, reveal a statistically significant relationship between the dimensions (χ² = 59.932; p < 0.001). The correspondence map (Fig. 1) explains 70.5% of the total inertia within the first two dimensions. Dimension 1, interpreted as the ‘Year of Study’, accounted for 40.0% of the variance (σ = .185), while Dimension 2, representing ‘Specialty Preference’, accounted for 30.5% (σ = .161). The total inertia was calculated to be .085. First-year students showed a clear preference for Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Second-year students are positioned towards the upper part of the graph, showing a strong association with the specialties of Restorative Dentistry and Prosthodontics. It is evident that Restorative Dentistry is a distinctive preference for this year’s cohort, particularly noteworthy is its significant contribution to Dimension 2, which has a value of 0.912. Third-year students exhibit a stronger alignment with the Endodontics specialty. Conversely, fourth and fifth year dental students are concentrated in the lower right quadrant of the graph. These students are pursuing specialties such as Paediatric Dentistry, Periodontology, and Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Participants’ specialty preferences by year of study. (Note: OMS: oral and maxillofacial surgery, OMR: oral and maxillofacial radiology). Correspondence analysis map of specialty preferences by year of study. Note. Model Significance: χ² = 59.932, p < 0.001; Total Inertia: 0.085; Explained variance: 0.400 by year of study (Dimension 1), 0.305 by specialty preference (Dimension 2). OMS: oral and maxillofacial surgery, OMR: oral and maxillofacial radiology

Discussion

The objective of this survey was to assess dental students’ attitudes towards specialist training and their awareness of such training in Türkiye. A key strength of this study is the large number of participants, enhancing the robustness of the findings. A number of studies have been conducted on the subject of specialization in dentistry [2, 7, 17, 21, 22]. In the context of survey-based studies, the nature of the surveys and the content of the questions exhibit significant variability. This has made it difficult to compare the present study with previous ones.

The present study’s demographic composition included a majority of female students, constituting 68% of the total sample. This finding is consistent with studies conducted by Sezer et al. [7] in Türkiye (66.9%), by Ameh et al. [21] in Nigeria (66.4%), and by Almaeeni et al. [23] in Iraq (73.1%). In this context, it can be posited that women exhibit a stronger preference for dentistry as a profession. Conversely, gender-based disparities in sensitivity might have also contributed to the elevated rate of female participation in the surveys.

A study was conducted to evaluate the factors that influence the selection of the faculty and the perspectives on specialization among third- and fifth-year dental students. The results of the study indicated that 72% of third-year students and 62% of fifth-year students reported that they considered specialist training to be necessary [16]. In a study by Küçükeşmen et al. [24] investigating the factors influencing dental students’ career choices, 80% of participants reported that they considered postgraduate or specialist training to be necessary. Dere et al. found that 79.71% of respondents considered specialization in dentistry to be necessary, while Fidele et al. found this figure to be 81% [2, 25]. The findings of these studies are consistent with the results of the present study. The increasing prevalence of a competitive environment, driven by the significant number of dentists graduating annually, may have precipitated the necessity for specialization. Previous studies have previously reported that the primary factors influencing the choice of specialization are good employment prospects, economic prosperity, and prestige [9, 25, 26]. The prevailing perception is that the income and social status of general dentists are lower than those of specialists [27]. In our study, financial considerations were a key factor influencing students’ specialization preferences. Specifically, 46.9% (n = 329) of participants perceived Orthodontics as the specialty with the highest income potential, while 32.2% (n = 226) identified Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery as the most financially rewarding. Additionally, 87.9% (n = 617) of students believed that pursuing a specialty would facilitate employment, indicating that both income and job prospects significantly impact their decision to specialize. In this context, the majority of participants’ inclination towards specialization is associated with their expectations of enhanced employment prospects, augmented income, and elevated social standing.

In their study, Gürses et al. [17] reported that the vast majority of Year 5 dental students (62.1%) felt that undergraduate education was not focused on the specialist examination. The prevalence of students seeking private tuition is particularly pronounced in Year 3 (59.6%) and Year 5 (64.1%). In the present study, approximately half of the participants expressed skepticism regarding the alignment of undergraduate education with the DSE. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated a preference for private educational institutions during the preparation process for the specialization exam. The academic demands placed upon dental students have been shown to result in elevated levels of stress and anxiety. This situation may lead them to conclude that their education is not exam-oriented and, consequently, to seek private tuition [28, 29].

The selection of a particular specialization is influenced by a multitude of factors, including the preferred department, university, and city. The present study’s finding that the choice of department has a greater influence than the choice of university or city is consistent with a previous study conducted at Selçuk University [17]. The observed tendency of students to prioritize the department during the selection of their specialization can be attributed to their aspiration to engage in more sophisticated procedures and cultivate their skills.

A study conducted with students in Pakistan revealed that Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics emerged as the most popular specialties [22]. A recent study conducted at a Nigerian University revealed that the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery once again emerged as the most popular discipline [21]. A study by Şahin examining the specialisation preferences of dental students in Türkiye reported that Orthodontics and oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were the most popular specialties [30]. The findings of a study conducted by Dere et al. [2] revealed a different trend among 769 dental students in Türkiye. This study showed that students in Türkiye preferred to pursue Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery after Orthodontics. In the present study, the most preferred specialty was also Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, followed by Orthodontics. Conversely, the practice of Restorative and Aesthetic Dentistry has garnered a more significant following in Saudi Arabia [31]. It is noteworthy that the field of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery has gained significant popularity in numerous countries.

A general consensus exists that Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics are the two most popular specialties. These two fields necessitate specialized assessment and treatment. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery is highly popular. Students perceive it as critical for patient care. Advanced surgical procedures are not taught during undergraduate training, and the department is considered prestigious. The most frequently chosen topics for specialist theses in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Türkiye are implantology and augmentation. Researchers have reported that the country’s oral health issues influenced their choice of thesis topic [32]. Similarly, dental students may wish to learn complex surgical procedures to reinforce their fundamental knowledge from their undergraduate studies. A study conducted in Saudi Arabia found variations in undergraduate surgical training across dental faculties. The researchers recommended developing learning guidelines to optimise training and produce competent dentists [33]. Notably, the perception of a high risk of complications has not deterred its popularity. Financial gain is a significant factor in dentists’ career choices [34]. The fact that Orthodontics is the second most popular specialism can be attributed to its reputation for offering the highest financial returns and its ability to meet aesthetic expectations by treating malocclusions, which is highly valued in terms of socio-economic status. This may also explain why it is chosen despite being considered less important for patient care [35–37]. This trend may raise concerns that market-driven motivations could influence professional priorities, resulting in preventive and community oral health services being neglected. This could affect the equitable distribution and quality of oral health services in the long term.

A discernible discrepancy emerges in the specializations pursued by gender. In previous studies, female students exhibited a greater propensity to opt for Orthodontics as their chosen discipline, while male students demonstrated a higher likelihood of selecting Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery [2, 25, 38]. In the present study, male students most frequently selected Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (43.3%), while female students opted for Orthodontics (37%). These findings are consistent with those of previous studies. For example, a study examining gender differences in dentists’ working practices and job satisfaction noted that societal trends and expectations specific to each gender shape this situation [39]. Another study reported that female dentists were more likely than their male counterparts to refer medically high-risk and complex cases to specialists [40, 41]. The surgical specialty entails a substantial volume of operations and necessitates a considerable amount of standing work, which can be exhausting [42]. Gender based differences can be explained by individual preferences and multidimensional factors, such as expectations regarding work life balance, perceptions of working conditions and socio cultural roles. Recent studies suggest that female students are more likely to choose jobs offering predictable and balanced working conditions. Conversely, male students are more likely to choose fields involving a higher workload and greater surgical intensity [43–45]. Consequently, women may be less inclined to pursue surgical specialties to the same extent as their male counterparts. A study by Sezer et al. examined the factors influencing specialization in Paediatric Dentistry. The study observed that female students preferred working with children more than their male counterparts [7]. In the present study, the observation that the Paediatric Dentistry specialty is more popular among women than among men may be attributable to women’s heightened propensity to engage in occupations involving children.

As differences in clinical experience may influence the choice of specialisation [46], students from all years of the dental degree programme were included in this study. The most preferred specialty also varied by year group. Second-year students demonstrated a predilection for restorative dentistry, while third-year students exhibited a preference for the Endodontics specialty. The intensive pre-clinical training in Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics received in the second and third years may have influenced the students’ preferences.

Limitations

A notable constraint of this study is the inability to ascertain the specific universities attended by the participants. Despite the relatively large sample size, self-selection bias may have been introduced due to the online, voluntary nature of the survey. Students with a greater interest in specialised or academic subjects may have been more likely to participate. The data is based on self-reports, which may be subject to response bias, such as the desire to appear socially desirable. Participants may have provided answers that they perceived to be socially acceptable rather than their true opinions. This could limit the representativeness of the sample and restrict how widely the findings can be generalised. Consequently, the findings cannot be extrapolated to students across the country, thereby limiting the generalizability of the study. To build upon this national snapshot, future research could adopt expanded sampling strategies to capture an even broader spectrum of Türkiye’s diverse dental education landscape. Utilizing anonymous institutional coding in future studies would allow for a more granular analysis of potential clustering effects and their influence on career trajectories.

Conclusion

The results of the study indicate that dental students perceive specialist training as a professional necessity. With respect to preferred specializations, the disciplines of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics are particularly salient. Financial gain and job security are key factors influencing career orientation. This study shows that when dental students are planning their careers, clinical interests, as well as economic and social factors, play a decisive role. The findings may guide dental faculties in curriculum planning and career counseling. Developing educational strategies that enable students to gain a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of different specialist areas and restructuring undergraduate curricula accordingly could contribute to a more balanced distribution of oral health services in the future.

Abbreviations

DSE

Dental Specialization Examination

STROBE

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization, S.K.K.; methodology, S.K.K. and K.T.T.; formal analysis, S.K.K.; investigation, S.K.K. and K.T.T.; data curation, S.K.K. and K.T.T.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.K.; writing—review and editing, S.K.K. and K.T.T.; visualization, S.K.K. and K.T.T.; supervision, S.K.K. and K.T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

None.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Non-Interventional Clinical Research at Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University (Ethics No: 17/2026). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study protocol, including all amendments and revisions, was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.