ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2024
A Comparison of Models for Teaching Suturing and Surgical Skills to Dental Students.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Study of 3D-Printed and Banana Model for Suture and Biopsy Training in Dental Education: A Randomised Controlled Trial.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Trial
- The 10-year evolution of a dental undergraduate 'Blended Learning' suturing programme.BDJ open · 2026Article
- Stitching the Future: Comparing Multiple Suturing Models for Training Predoctoral Dental Students.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Perceptions of the use of a 3D-printed manufactured educational simulator for incisions and sutures.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning suturing skills is an important area of the undergraduate curriculum and ideally requires realistic and anatomically accurate surgical training models to prepare students for treating patients. Little is currently understood regarding which model might be perceived by students to be the best or which might most effectively facilitate their learning. The aim of this study was to compare four teaching models: a tabletop silicon dental model, a restricted access tabletop model, a traditional phantom head mounted model, and a Thiel cadaver. Student preferences were explored for each of the models. Following lecture and video-based teaching 67 fourth-year students attended a practical suturing teaching session followed by the second session more focused on the experience of cutting and suturing mucoperiosteal flaps. Forty-six students (67%) gave online anonymous feedback on the first session. The majority (95%) felt prepared to place a simple interrupted suture on a patient, and 88% felt confident to do so. Twenty-eight students (40%) provided feedback on the second session with 82% agreeing that they were prepared to cut a mucoperiosteal flap and 48% felt confident to do this for a patient. The cadaver model was rated as the best of the four models for both suturing and mucoperiosteal flap skills. These results support its use for teaching students to suturing and surgical skills. However, despite this teaching student-rated confidence to cut and suture flaps for a patient remains poor.
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.