Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Eye-tracking metrics to compare visual attention in prosthodontic preclinical evaluations.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe study aimed to evaluate gaze behavior during tooth preparation assessments by analyzing and comparing eye-tracking metrics between novice and expert groups.
methodsThirty-five participants, divided into novices (n = 18, mean age = 22.9 ± 1.5 years) and experts (n = 17, mean age = 44.3 ± 13.1 years), were recruited for this observational study. The novice group consisted of third-year dental students, while the expert group comprised licensed dentists with an average of 18.9 ± 12.7 years of clinical experience. Eye-tracking metrics, including total duration of fixation (TDF), number of fixations (NF), time to first fixation (TFF), and pupil size, were measured across different areas of interest (AOIs). The data was analyzed with a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.
resultsBoth novices and experts focused mainly on the "buccal wall" and "margin" (finishing line) AOIs during tooth preparation evaluation. The novices showed significantly longer TDF (P = 0.034), more NF (P = 0.047), and longer TFF (P = 0.021) compared to experts. However, there were no significant differences in pupil diameter between groups or AOIs, indicating similar cognitive load despite differences in visual behavior.
conclusionOverall, the novices tend to have longer fixation durations, more frequent fixations, and a delayed time to first fixation compared to experts during tooth preparation assessments. The study also concludes that both novices and experts primarily focus on the buccal wall and finishing line. These differences indicate that visual processing varies between the two groups, with novices demonstrating less efficient visual processing skills. In general, the findings highlight how experience influences gaze behavior in the assessment of tooth preparation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These findings can refine pre-clinical prosthodontic education by fostering expert-like visual processing skills, enabling students to better understand and perform prosthodontic tasks. This targeted approach enhances their training and prepares them more effectively for clinical practice.
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.