ArticleBMC medical education2025
Undergraduate dental students' knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction following a step-by-step course in microscopic dentistry.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing use of dental operating microscopes, structured undergraduate training is limited and often lacks hands-on integration. This study evaluates undergraduate dental students’ knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction following a step-by-step course in microscopic dentistry.
methodsThis single-group quasi-experimental study included 103 second-year dental undergraduates from Wuhan University, completing a 4-session step-by-step microscopic dentistry course. Two researcher-developed questionnaires, which were pilot-tested and contained Likert-scale and binary-response items, were administered to participants at the following time: (1) a pre-course questionnaire assessing core knowledge areas and attitudes toward microscopic dentistry, (2) a post-course questionnaire evaluating changes in knowledge and attitudes as well as satisfaction with this course. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests for knowledge and attitude scales, McNemar’s tests for binary responses, and one-sample t-tests for satisfaction data (p < 0.05).
resultsAmong 103 enrolled students, response rates were 99.0% (102/103) for the pre-course assessment and 95.1% (98/103) for the post-course assessment, with 88 matched pairs retained for final analysis. The knowledge assessment scores demonstrated a statistically significant improvement following the course intervention (2.90 ± 0.83 to 4.20 ± 0.69, p < 0.001). Regarding participants’ attitudes, perceived dental operating microscope necessity increased (4.53 ± 0.61 to 4.82 ± 0.42, p < 0.001), with clinical benefit recognition rising from 89.7 to 97.7% (p = 0.021) and treatment time misconceptions declining from 44.8 to 21.8% (p = 0.001). These improvements suggest the course effectively addressed both conceptual and perceptual gaps. Course satisfaction was high (97.7% overall), with 100% agreement on content relevance and teaching method effectiveness.
conclusionsThe course appears to be an effective tool for enhancing dental students’ knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction. Further controlled studies are needed to validate its long-term impact. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.