ArticleJournal of dental education2026
Effectiveness of Flipped Learning Compared to Conventional Instruction in Teaching Tooth Extraction to Dental Students.
Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of conventional theoretical instruction and flipped learning supported by demonstrative videos in teaching tooth extraction to dental students.
methodsA prospective, comparative study was conducted during the 2024-2025 academic year with 112 fourth-year dental students who had no prior experience in tooth extraction. Students were randomized into a flipped learning group (n = 62) and a control group (n = 50). The flipped group received video-based procedural education, while the control group received conventional lectures. Following their first clinical extraction, all students completed a seven-item questionnaire assessing unaided performance, anxiety, preparedness, and perceived competence. Statistical analyses included Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, with effect sizes reported as rank biserial correlation (r).
resultsA significantly greater proportion of students in the flipped group performed the extraction without assistance compared to the control group (58.1% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.0468). The flipped group also reported lower procedural anxiety (p = 0.0468, r = 0.21) and greater perceived sufficiency of instrument training (p = 0.0224, r = 0.24). However, no significant group differences were observed in perceived usefulness of instruction, theoretical preparation, or self-rated instrument competence.
conclusionsFlipped learning improved students' procedural independence and reduced anxiety during their first clinical extraction. While beneficial for technical and emotional preparedness, flipped instruction alone may not sufficiently enhance students' self-perceived competence or theoretical readiness. These findings support incorporating flipped learning into dental curricula while highlighting the need for complementary strategies to foster clinical confidence.
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.