Trial reportEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
Comparative Study of 3D-Printed and Banana Model for Suture and Biopsy Training in Dental Education: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 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
objectiveTo determine which model - the banana or the 3D-printed anatomical model - is most effective for teaching sutures and biopsies to third-year dental students, considering both non-technical and technical aspects. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 74 students participated in this two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). Non-technical effectiveness was evaluated by assessing students' reactions to the pedagogical models after the practical work (PW), as well as by measuring their perceived competence, confidence and anxiety both before and after the training. Technical effectiveness was objectively assessed by scoring sutures and biopsies using a criteria grid.
resultsStudents in the 3D-printed anatomical group were more satisfied than those in the banana group across all assessed criteria, including ease of handling, realism and suitability for clinical preparation (p < 0.0001). After the PW, both groups showed improved competence (p < 0.001) and confidence (p < 0.001), as well as reduced anxiety (p < 0.001), with no significant intergroup differences. Objective suture assessment scores were higher in the 3D-printed anatomical group than in the banana group (17.68/20 vs. 12.97/20, p < 0.0001), while for biopsies, no significant difference was demonstrated (8.60/10 vs. 8.17/10; ns).
conclusionThe 3D-printed anatomical model was superior to the banana model in both non-technical aspects (e.g., satisfaction) and in technical aspects for suture practicing. This superiority could be attributed in particular to the improved mechanical properties and realism. For biopsies, both models were technically equally effective, suggesting that tissue fidelity may be less critical for this procedure.
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.