2 of dental students, dentists, endodontists, and other dental specialists residing in Saudi Arabia. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Design of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire survey comprised nine questions exploring endodontic perform- ance, participant demographics, and attitude towards NTRF usage. Some of the questions used in a study by Bird et al. [11] were utilized in this survey and expanded to cover most of the aspects related to NTRF usage, which was based on information from the most recent publications on NTRF and root canal preparation. Questionnaires were formulated in two languages, English and Arabic. A pilot questionnaire was given to ﬁve dentists and endodontists to evaluate their understanding of the survey and the clarity of the ques- tionnaire. From their feedback, the questionnaires were reﬁned into their ﬁnal format, and their responses have been included in the overall results. The questions were constructed in a manner that avoids leading the participants to a particular answer. For some questions, when a list of possible answers was given, participants were asked to choose the answer that best ﬁtted their clinical situation, and if none of the selections were suitable, they were permitted to type an answer of their own. One question had the option of free text only, but the remaining eight questions were constructed by using check boxes that were to be ticked appropriately next to each answer and an “others” option, which allowed for the typing of answer if selected. Selection of more than one answer was allowed for some questions, depending on the targeted idea. An explanation of the objectives of the study accompanied the questionnaires and assured conﬁdentiality. In order to guarantee anonymity, the survey did not include the names or identiﬁcation numbers of the participants. 2.2. Distribution and Collection of the Survey. Online ques- tionnaires were distributed using the web interface “Survey Monkey.” Responses were collected over a three-month period; two reminder emails were sent to all responders, encouraging them to participate in the study. The survey was sent to a total number of 1620 members, following exclusion of inactive addresses on the Saudi Dental Society email database. Conﬁdentiality was assured by asking all participants to ensure that they did not write their names, or anything else related to their identity, in the survey. 2.3. Data Analysis. If more than 5% of respondents had provided the same response to a question with an open text ﬁeld at the time of analysis, then that answer was integrated into the data set for statistical analysis as a new category. Answers provided less frequently than 5% were stored as full text but were not analyzed in this study. An SPSS package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. χ2 tests and tests for diﬀerences in proportions were used to analyze the data set. The level of signiﬁcance was set at P = 0.05; outcomes of statistical tests were only reported when this level was reached. International Journal of Dentistry Table 1: Root canal performance according to specialty. Participants No. RCT Specialty who perform Perform RCT (%)a RCT Dental student 43 31 (72.1) 12 (27.9) General dentist 220 198 (90)∗∗ 22 (10) AEGDb & Saudi board 71 69 (97.2)∗∗ 2 (2.8) in restorative dentistry Endodontist & Saudi 61 59 (96.7)∗∗ 2 (3.3) board in endodontics Other specialties 95 49 (51.6) 46 (48.4) Total 490 406 (82.9) 84 (17.1) a The percentage valued between parenthesis refers to each group, ∗∗(χ2 = 95.36, P < 0.001), bAdvanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD). 3. Results The respondents were classiﬁed into the following categories. 3.1. Legible Participants. These formed the bulk of the partic- ipants and included all dental students, endodontic residents, endodontists, dentists, individuals with advanced education in general dentistry, and all the other dental specialties that were practicing in Saudi Arabia during the time of study. The total number of legible participants was 490. 3.2. Illegible Participants. These included any of the special- ties mentioned in “legible participants” who were not prac- ticing in Saudi Arabia while the study was being conducted. The total number of illegible participants was 23. Any partially ﬁlled survey was disregarded and consid- ered as “no response.” All specialties were categorized into four groups according to the skills and requirements neces- sary for that particular specialty. The initial number of participants was 1620; however, after excluding those who were illegible, the ﬁnal number was 1597, with a response rate of 30.6%. 3.3. Performance of RCT according to Specialty. Participants were asked if they currently perform RCT. This question was considered as key for the survey, since any participant who gave a negative response was directed to exit the survey at this point. As shown in Table 1, 406 (82.9%) of the 490 respondents were performing RCT. Almost 45% of the total numbers of dentists performing RCT were general dentists, but the highest percentage of those conducting within each group per se was observed in the Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry (SBRD) group, followed by the Endodontists and Saudi Board in Endodontics groups (χ2 = 95.36, P < 0.001), in this group only two participants answered by a negative response. The group that performed the least amount of RCT, excluding the dental students, was the “others” group, which comprised participants from all the other dental specialties that were not included in any of the other groups (Table 1).