The original version of this article contained mistakes. The complete list of corrections is given below.

* Under the header Statistical Analysis, the sentence “Difference in pre- and post-intervention questionnaire responses were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient” should be changed to “Difference in pre- and post-intervention questionnaire responses were assessed using the Pearson chi square. For the purpose of this analysis, we only included participants that answered both pre- and post-intervention responses”.

* Under the header Demographics, the last sentence should read “A total of 53 (71.6%) participants completed the pre-questionnaire, educational intervention, and post-questionnaire”

* The text under the header Questionnaire Results should read:

When asked about HPV-related cancer types, 22.6% of participants answered correctly during the pre-intervention compared to 50.9% in the post-intervention survey (p = 0.01) (Table 2). When asked about the prevalence of HPV infections, there was a statistically significant increase in number of correct responses after the educational intervention (from 40–71.7%; p < 0.01).

Forty-four of the 53 post-intervention responses (83%) correctly answered questions about the HPV vaccine schedule, compared to 30/53 (56.6%) pre-intervention responses (p < 0.01). However, when asked about who should receive the HPV vaccine, nine out of 53 respondents (17%) selected all the corrected responses in the pre-intervention questionnaire, while only 5 out of 53 (9.4%) answered correctly to all the questions in the post intervention questionnaire (p < 0.01). More than 90% of all cervical cancers diagnoses in the United States are associated with HRHPV infection [11]; 11 of 53 (20.8%) answered this correctly in the pre-intervention questionnaire compared to 26/53 (49.1%) in the post-intervention questionnaire (p < 0.01). Thirty-four of 53 (92.4%) of the participants pre-intervention gave a correct response about HPV vaccine related adverse effects (“none of the above” in Table 2), while 44/53 (83%) of the participants post-intervention answered correctly (p < 0.01). Nearly all participants in both pre-intervention (94.3%) and post-intervention (98.1%) questionnaires answered correctly when asked about the importance of continuing screening for cervical cancer after receiving the HPV vaccine. We found no differences in knowledge on HPV and HPV vaccination when the two institutions were considered and when dental and medical trainees were compared (data not shown; p > 0.05).

After the educational intervention, 46/53 (86.8%) of all participants strongly agreed that the online education module improved their HPV knowledge (Table 4). Thirty-seven of 53 (69.8%) strongly agreed that they were more likely to recommend HPV vaccine after the online education intervention. Thirty of 38 (78.9%) strongly agreed that, if allowed by law for dentists, they would be willing to provide HPV vaccines to their patients in their clinics or practices.

* Under the Discussion section, the sentence “However, there is a need to enhance the educational tool in the future and modifications should be made to emphasize that the recommendation for HPV vaccination remains applicable for women under 45 years, even if they have a history of cervical cancer or an abnormal pap smear” should be inserted after the last sentence of the fifth paragraph. In the sixth paragraph, the sentence “Therefore, the proposed online tool could be easily adopted to train future healthcare providers and to effectively disseminate HPV-related information and improve current HPV vaccination practices.” should be changed to “Therefore, the proposed online tool, with some minor improvements, could be easily adopted to train future healthcare providers and to effectively disseminate HPV-related information and improve current HPV vaccination practices.”

* The updated Tables 2 and 3 are shown below.

The original article has been corrected.