## 3 Results
### Professional Characteristics and Resin Material Selection

Table 4: Correlations between selection criteria for resin materials and professional characteristics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Gender** \\ **(Female vs.** \\ **Male**) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Age (over** \\ **45 Years** \\ \end{tabular}) & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dental School** \\ **(Foreign vs.** \\ **Domestic)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Post-Grad** \\ **Studies in** \\ **Dentistry** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Clinical** \\ **Experience** \\ **(over 5 Years)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Employment** \\ **(Private Clinic** \\ **vs. Other)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Resin** \\ **Restorations** \\ **over 22** \\ **Timees/Year** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Not** \\ **Responsible** \\ **Restorations** \\ **tions/Week** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Familiarity with specifications & \(-0.033\) & \(0.076\) & \(0.132\) & \(-0.108\) & \(0.231\)\({}^{*}\) & \(-0.041\) & \(0.254\)\({}^{*}\) & \(-0.341\)\({}^{**}\) & \(0.163\) \\ \hline Specifications & \(0.109\) & \(0.150\) & \(0.094\) & \(0.038\) & \(0.195\) & \(-0.025\) & \(0.052\) & \(-0.092\) & \(0.095\) \\ \hline Features priority when choosing resin restorative materials & \(0.232\)\({}^{*}\) & \(0.136\) & \(0.177\) & \(0.213\) & \(0.106\) & \(-0.106\) & \(-0.105\) & \(0.093\) & \(-0.026\) \\ \hline Photopolymerization & \(-0.162\) & \(-0.084\) & \(-0.022\) & \(-0.147\) & \(0.050\) & \(-0.117\) & \(-0.084\) & \(-0.001\) & \(0.113\) \\ \hline Bending strength & \(-0.204\) & \(-0.111\) & \(0.011\) & \(-0.056\) & \(-0.233\)\({}^{*}\) & \(0.181\) & \(0.112\) & \(-0.092\) & \(-0.078\) \\ \hline Water absorbency, & \(0.130\) & \(0.056\) & \(-0.176\) & \(-0.030\) & \(0.108\) & \(0.009\) & \(0.056\) & \(0.009\) & \(0.019\) \\ \hline Green practice but falls slightly short of some of the ISO specifications & \(0.092\) & \(0.181\) & \(0.066\) & \(0.057\) & \(0.113\) & \(-0.028\) & \(0.211\) & \(-0.021\) & \(0.182\) \\ \hline It depends on the specifications & \(0.114\) & \(-0.176\) & \(0.029\) & \(-0.001\) & \(-0.025\) & \(-0.061\) & \(-0.172\) & \(0.099\) & \(0.020\) \\ \hline No, for the ISO standards are the most important selection criterion & \(-0.155\) & \(0.099\) & \(-0.058\) & \(-0.024\) & \(-0.025\) & \(0.075\) & \(0.082\) & \(-0.091\) & \(-0.102\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{*}\), \({}^{*}\)Stards for statistical significance.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Correlations between professional characteristics and familiarity with specifications and features priority in resin restorative materials. Regarding the importance of compliance with specifications, no statistically significant correlations were found with professional characteristics. In feature prioritization, biocompatibility was significantly correlated with gender (r = 0.232, \(p\) < 0.05), revealing that female dentists may have the tendency to place higher importance on patient safety in material selection. Meanwhile, bending strength was negatively correlated with clinical experience (r = \(-\)0.233, \(p\) < 0.05), implying that less experienced dentists may overemphasize mechanical durability, whereas experienced clinicians might consider a broader range of factors. The preference for green practices showed an interesting trend. Those purchasing resin materials frequently were significantly more likely to prioritize environmental considerations (r = 0.211, \(p\) < 0.05). However, ISO compliance remained the dominant concern for most respondents, regardless of experience or background. Further, Figure 3 illustrates the importance of environmental factors when purchasing resin restorative materials for conservative restorations, segmented by gender. A weak but statistically significant association was observed, with female dentists reporting slightly higher importance on environmental considerations than male dentists.