Trial reportJournal of dental education2025
Integrating digital technology in endodontic education: A randomized controlled trial evaluating student self-assessment and perspectives.
Trial report in Journal of dental education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating digital technology in endodontic education: A randomized controlled trial evaluating student self-assessment and perspectives.Journal of dental education · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess a modified use of Compare software as a resource to (1) improve students' ability to self-assess their endodontic access preparations (EAPs) and (2) students' opinions of this adjunct.
methodsSixty second-year dental students were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 30). A questionnaire was developed and validated. Both groups performed two accesses on #14 acrylic teeth, one at the course's outset and another at its conclusion, and evaluated them using a traditional method of assessment, completed the self-assessment form, and answered items 1‒4 of the questionnaire. The experimental group (G2) received training and were asked to evaluate their EAPs three-dimensionally (3D), complete the self-assessment form a second time, and answer items 5‒14 of the questionnaire. Data were analyzed statistically (significance set at 5%).
resultsUsing the traditional method, G1 (control group) showed improvement in "size-shape," G2 in "encroachment," and both increased their "overall rate" (p < 0.05). Using the 3D method, G2 showed improvement in the "mesial extent" (p < 0.05). No difference was found between groups for self-assessment or opinions (items 1‒4) (p > 0.05). However, both had an increase in confidence from the first access to the second, and G1 participants believed they improved their ability to perform and assess EAPs (p < 0.05).
conclusionNo difference was observed between the two groups when relying upon the traditional method alone. Both groups experienced an increase in confidence but only G1 believed that their ability to perform and assess EAPs improved. Notably, 96.7% of G2 believed that the 3D method should be incorporated into preclinical endodontic training.
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.