ArticleEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
Comparison of 3D-Printed Patient Model Versus Animal Cadaveric Model in Periodontal Surgery Block Course-What Is More Feasible for Beginners? A Pilot Study.
Article in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 2026. 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.
- 3D-Printed Models in Oral Surgery Simulation Training: A Scoping Review.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Fabrication and evaluation of a novel patient-specific 3D-printed simulation model for oral surgical training.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the use of a 3D-printed manufactured educational simulator for incisions and sutures.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Technical Skill Acquisition in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery: Evaluation of a 3D-Printed Simulator for Thoracoscopic Esophageal Atresia Repair.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodontal surgery is part of the dental curriculum at German universities. A particular challenge is to provide a basic understanding of surgery. This is the first pilot study evaluating the extent to which regenerative therapy or lower molar hemisection can be learned using a specially produced 3D-individualised patient model compared to a porcine cadaveric model.
methodsDuring the periodontal surgery block practical, 14 students performed lower molar hemisection and regenerative therapy with bone graft substitute (Bio Oss, Bio Gide; Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) on an individualised 3D model. Interventions were then evaluated using a validated questionnaire. Differences between groups were statistically assessed for individual items and the overall questionnaire using the Wilcoxon test (p < 0.05).
resultsIn the overall evaluation, the 3D-printed patient and animal cadaveric model did not differ significantly, with the animal cadaveric model scoring a slightly higher score. The 3D-printed patient model was considered more realistic for the anatomical appearance of each part, being evaluated superior for practicing regenerative therapy, removing inflammatory tissue and performing molar hemisections. The animal cadaveric model was rated better for soft and hard tissue tactile feedback.
conclusionWith the 3D-individualised model, hemisection and regenerative therapy can be performed realistically, but soft and hard tissue feedback still needs to be optimised. 3D models are useful for teaching periodontal surgery. In the future, if optimised, 3D printing could completely replace the animal cadaveric model, as it offers clear advantages (e.g., easier organisation, better hygiene).
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.