ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2020
Development of an error-detection examination for conservative dentistry education.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Video-enhanced training for entrustable professional activities in preclinical oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Development of an error-detection examination for conservative dentistry education.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor dental students, textbooks and lectures provide basic knowledge, and simulated and actual clinical training provide learning in technical and communication skills. At our college, conservative dentistry is taught in the third and fourth years of a 6-year undergraduate degree. Clinical training is undertaken subsequently in the fifth year and includes cavity preparation and composite resin filling tasks. However, despite the clinical importance of a full understanding surrounding these procedures, sixth-year students occasionally provide incorrect answers regarding these procedures in assessments. Although they demonstrated a basic understanding of the procedures, they may have forgotten the acquired knowledge during their clinical training. Therefore, we developed an error-detection examination to evaluate and improve fifth-year students' knowledge.
methodsWritten detailed treatment procedures for standardized, typical, cases were presented to students. Some critical steps were intentionally written incorrectly, and students had to identify and correct these. After correcting the steps, students gave a presentation to their peers on their corrections. This was followed by a summary of the correct answers and a short lecture by the teacher. Students then completed a questionnaire investigating their experience of the examination.
resultsStudents misunderstood some key treatment steps, such as pretreatment of composite resin filling, amalgam removal, and ceramic inlay fitting. The questionnaire revealed that this method of testing applied knowledge was new to students and helped them to identify knowledge gaps. The test also increased their motivation to study conservative dentistry. Students were open to taking similar tests in different areas.
conclusionAlthough conservative dentistry is a basic field of dental treatment, mistakes in treatment can lead to early treatment failure or reduce the lifetime of a restored tooth. Therefore, students need to have a deep understanding of procedures. Error-detection examinations may help students identify knowledge gaps and provide useful feedback to teachers to identify areas that they should stress in earlier years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.