Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Undergraduate students' performance and perception of video-recordings versus live demonstrations for teaching orthodontic laboratory procedures: a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare three methods of delivering an orthodontic laboratory procedure on students' academic performance; live demonstration, video-recorded demonstration, or both. To assess students' perceptions and preferences to the demonstration methods employed. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 202 fourth-year undergraduate students were randomly allocated to three groups; live demonstration, video-recorded demonstration, or both. Students were instructed to construct a buccal canine retractor immediately after the demonstration method ended, answer 2 short essay questions about buccal canine retractors to assess their theoretical comprehension, and fill a questionnaire to assess their perception and attitude towards the methods of demonstration.
resultsThe mean score for construction of the buccal canine retractor was significantly higher for the live demonstration group compared to the 2 other groups (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the 3 groups in answering the essay questions (P > 0.05). Most students (95.3%) agreed that live demonstrations helped them visualize and understand difficult wire bending techniques, and allowed interaction between students and the lecturer (93.9%). Around 83% agreed that video recordings were a useful aid to live demonstrations but only 11.9% indicated that they could totally replace live demonstrations. More than half of the students preferred a live demonstration compared to watching a video-recording.
conclusionThe live demonstration group performed better than the video-recorded demonstration group. Most students preferred a live demonstration method of teaching orthodontic wire bending, however the majority indicated that a video-recorded demonstration was a useful aid to a live demonstration.
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.