ArticleJournal of dental education2026
Chatbot Versus Lecture in the Teaching of Endodontic Diagnosis for Undergraduate Students-A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. 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.
- The effectiveness of GAI-assisted teaching methods in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Chatbot Versus Lecture in the Teaching of Endodontic Diagnosis for Undergraduate Students-A Pilot Study.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
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
purposesThis study compared a chatbot with an expository interactive lecture as a tool for teaching pulpal and periapical diagnosis in undergraduate dental education.
methodsA chatbot and an expository interactive lecture were used to deliver the topic of pulpal and periapical diagnosis based on the American Association of Endodontics guidelines. A total of 24 second-year students in a 4-year undergraduate program were enrolled. An initial test (Test A) with 10 multiple-choice questions was applied to all students. Then, the students were randomly assigned to two different groups: Lecture (control) and Chatbot (experimental). The Lecture group attended an expository interactive lecture delivered by an endodontist. Simultaneously, in the Chatbot group, the chatbot was delivered to the students through the Telegram Messenger application. After 50 min, both groups were submitted to the same test (Test B). Subsequently, the Control group used the chatbot, while the Experimental group attended a lecture by the same faculty. After the split activity, all the students replied to a questionnaire with their perceptions regarding both activities. Statistical analysis was performed with the significance level set at 5%.
resultsTwenty-two students replied to the questions. Both Lecture and Chatbot groups showed significant grade improvement (Lecture: from 6.18 ± 2.08 to 8.45 ± 1.28; Chatbot: from 5.55 ± 1.63 to 7.91 ± 1.58). No difference in the initial and final average grades was detected between the groups. Overall, the chatbot was considered more fun and simpler while the lecture was preferred for understanding (p < 0.05). Chatbot was rated 4.95/5 for ease of use.
conclusionsThe chatbot was as effective as an interactive lecture in delivering the basic content of pulpal and periapical diagnosis. The students' perception was that the chatbot was simpler and more fun than the lecture; however, the interactive lecture is a better tool to fully understand the topic. The professor is irreplaceable when discussing the content.
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.