Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of dental students' tooth preparation skills using conventional phantom labs versus advanced simulation technologies: a comparative study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreclinical training is essential in dental education for developing psychomotor and clinical skills. Conventional phantom models are widely used, though they lack real-time tactile feedback. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of conventional phantom training with that of advanced simulation-based systems in improving dental students' tooth preparation skills.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial included 40 s-year dental students (N = 40) with no prior experience in simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to either conventional phantom training or virtual reality (VR) based simulation. Both groups received 10 h of training. Pre- and post-tests involved preparing tooth 46 with a chamfer finish line. Performances were assessed using five criteria: parallelism, occlusal reduction, taper angle, finish line standardization, and presence of undercuts. Each was scored on a 0-10 scale by a blinded evaluator. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA with post hoc tests at a significance level of p < .05.
resultsBoth groups showed improvement in post-test scores The simulation group's post-test performance was found to be significantly higher than that of the other groups. Post hoc analysis confirmed that the simulation group outperformed both its own pre-test and the conventional group's post-test results.
conclusionsSimulation-based training led to significantly higher outcomes in tooth preparation compared to conventional methods. The integration of digital simulation into dental education may enhance clinical readiness by providing individualized, repeatable, and measurable learning environments.
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.