ArticleCureus2024
Effectiveness of Different Teaching Methods in Enhancing Dental Undergraduate Students' Knowledge and Restorative Cement Manipulation Skills.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Innovative Didactic Learning Formats: Have They Improved Dental Education? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International endodontic journal · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Developing manual skills is important in dental education. Clinical skills can be taught via clinical demonstrations, and knowledge can be delivered through lectures. Performing dental restorations is an essential skill for dentists, which requires a comprehensive knowledge of the manipulation of the restorative materials. The present study sought to compare the effectiveness of flipped learning (FL), smart class (SC), and traditional teaching (TT) methods in two arenas of learning: acquisition of theoretical knowledge and practical skill in manipulating dental restorative cement. Materials and methods All first-year undergraduate dental students (n = 60) were divided into three study groups and exposed to three teaching methods, namely TT, SC, and FL of three different dental restorative cements. Each teaching method was followed by an evaluation of the "knowledge assessment score," a live demonstration of the cement manipulation, and the participants' "skill assessment score." Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean and SD for continuous variables. A comparison of the knowledge assessment scores and skill assessment scores between the study groups was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test. Intergroup comparison was done using Tukey's post hoc test. Results The FL group had a significantly higher "knowledge assessment score" (p = 0.001), while there was no significant difference between the SC and TT groups (p = 1.0). Both FL and SC groups had significantly higher "skill assessment scores" (p = 0.001), with no significant difference between them (p = 0.798). Conclusions Of the three teaching methods assessed, FL proved to be more effective in the knowledge acquired and clinical competence demonstrated when compared to the other two techniques in dental education.
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.