Trial reportInternational endodontic journal2026
Impact of Haptic Simulators and 3D-Printed Teeth on Dental Students' Self-Assessment of Endodontic Access Cavities: A Comparative Pilot Study.
Trial report in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Haptic Simulators and 3D-Printed Teeth on Dental Students' Self-Assessment of Endodontic Access Cavities: A Comparative Pilot Study.International endodontic journal · 2026Trial
- From Research to Education: When Natural Teeth Are the Only Reference-Student Perceptions of PolyJet™ 3D-Printed Teeth in Endodontic Training.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the impact of two innovative training methods, haptic simulators and 3D-printed teeth, on the self-assessment accuracy of dental students when evaluating endodontic access cavities. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, experimental, and comparative educational trial was conducted with undergraduate dental students randomly assigned to two groups: Group S (haptic simulators, n = 12) and Group 3D (3D-printed teeth, n = 10). Participants performed six access cavity preparations over two training sessions and self-assessed their work using a standardised evaluation form. A pre-test and post-test assessment of pre-prepared access cavities was conducted to measure changes in self-assessment accuracy. Evaluations were also performed by experts to establish a gold standard. The percentage of agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both groups. Statistical analyses included McNemar's test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05).
resultsBoth groups improved their self-assessment scores over time. However, only Group S showed a statistically significant increase in correct responses in the post-test evaluation (p = 0.009). The overall agreement between participants and experts remained low in both groups, with Cohen's kappa values indicating fair agreement. The primary source of disagreement was overestimation, particularly in Group 3D. While Group S exhibited better alignment with expert assessments over time, differences between the two groups were not statistically significant.
conclusionsHaptic simulators and 3D-printed teeth both contributed to students' self-assessment skills. However, haptic simulators were more effective in improving self-assessment accuracy. Despite these improvements, agreement with expert evaluations remained low; highlighting the need for additional feedback and guidance during 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.