## 4 Discussion
### Limitations of the Study  
While this study provides meaningful insights into the factors influencing resin-based material selection among dental professionals, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis did not adjust for potential confounding variables, such as age and experience, which may interact and influence the observed associations. Second, the observed correlations were weak and should be interpreted with caution. Finally, no correction for multiple comparisons was applied, which may increase the risk of type I error. Theselimitations should be addressed in future studies with a larger sample. Further, the sample was simultaneously limited to dentists affiliated with the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Institutional affiliation can influence clinical protocols, procurement practices, and educational exposure, introducing contextual bias not necessarily representative of national or international settings [90; 92]. Nonetheless, the inclusion of clinicians with diverse backgrounds and access to a wide range of materials supports the relevance of the findings to similar academic and clinical environments. These characteristics provide important context for interpreting the results and understanding both the strengths and limitations of the study population. We should further mention that our study was designed as a pilot investigation, the primary purpose of which is to explore patterns, test the feasibility of research instruments, and identify potential variables and relationships for further study. As it is reported, pilot studies serve as essential precursors to larger-scale investigations, providing preliminary data that can inform the refinement of research questions, methodological design, and sampling strategies [93; 94]. In this context, the current findings should be viewed as exploratory rather than definitive, offering a foundational understanding of professional decision-making regarding resin materials, which can be tested and expanded upon in future multi-center or longitudinal research, as mentioned also elsewhere [95]. To add more to this, the cross-sectional design offers only a snapshot of clinicians' preferences and knowledge at one point in time, without capturing how these evolve with experience or education. A longitudinal or pre-post intervention study could better assess changes over time. Although open-ended questions allowed participants to elaborate, their responses were only briefly summarized; a more structured qualitative analysis, such as thematic grouping, could add valuable depth in future research. Expanding the study to a larger, more demographically and geographically diverse sample would improve representativeness and strengthen cross-contextual comparisons [96]. Finally, responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias, and reliance on self-reported knowledge introduces potential measurement bias, as self-assessments may not reflect actual clinical competence [97; 98]. Despite these limitations, this study offers several strengths. It addresses a notable gap in the literature by empirically examining how professional characteristics influence restorative material selection, with a focus on both clinical and sustainability-related factors. Furthermore, it contributes original data from an underrepresented professional population and provides a validated survey tool that can be adapted for broader research contexts.