ArticleBMC oral health2025
Design and practice of Oral Biomaterials course for education of stomatology in Chinese universities.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no consensus among universities regarding the content and format of Oral Biomaterials courses for graduate dental students. This course was designed to maximize instructional efficiency within a limited timeframe and to promote the sharing of educational resources. The aim is to cultivate interdisciplinary thinking, enhance clinical diagnostic reasoning, and increase research awareness, all while providing a solid foundation in materials science.
methodsTo develop a robust curriculum, we surveyed 89 dental educators from 18 universities across 14 provinces in China. Their feedback informed the selection of effective teaching strategies, the design of course content and structure, and the development of comprehensive assessment methods. As an elective, the course was attended by 14 graduate students whose performance was evaluated through both course grades and survey questionnaires. These results were then compared with the academic outcomes of 10 students who experienced traditional teaching methods.
resultsSurvey data revealed that approximately 57.3% of the teachers supported establishing a dedicated Oral Biomaterials course, and 61.8% endorsed scheduling the course during the graduate period. For the course design, 61.8% recommended an equal balance between theoretical and practical instruction, while 76.4% believed that 25-35 class hours provided the most effective teaching duration. These differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). After one semester, the experimental group achieved an average comprehensive score of 88.77, significantly higher than the 79.33 average observed in the group taught by traditional methods (P < 0.05).
conclusionBy gathering and analyzing the insights of dental educators from major Chinese universities, this study developed an online curriculum system that overcomes the spatial and temporal limitations of traditional instruction. The system addresses the current shortage of accessible online resources for Oral Biomaterials courses and promotes inter-institutional resource sharing. The one-semester implementation and subsequent evaluation confirmed that this innovative teaching approach significantly improved learning outcomes and received positive feedback from students.
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.