ArticleBMC medical education2026
A comparative analysis on the perceptions of Chinese dentists and dental students towards the practical course of stabilization occlusal splint fabrication.
Article in BMC medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the mastery degree, study challenges, and teaching needs of dental professionals at different levels in practical courses on the fabrication of stabilization occlusal splints, aiming to continuously improve teaching quality.
methodsA total of 64 undergraduate dental students and 41 clinical dentists were enrolled as participants. In the stabilization splint fabrication course, theoretical teaching and practical training were conducted by the same faculty team. After all the participants fabricated qualified occlusal splints, post-course questionnaires were administered to analyze mastery degree in theory and practical training, course challenges and difficulty ratings, self-rated splint comfort, prioritization of critical procedures, and preferred instructional modalities.
resultsThe clinician group demonstrated higher scores than the student group in mastery degree in theory (P = 0.001) and practical training (P < 0.001). Although both groups ranked the challenges similarly, the student group reported more difficulty in foundational steps such as “resin laying, framework fabrication, and occlusal surface shaping” compared to the dentist group (P = 0.012).The clinician group rated the comfort level of the splints as the “comfortable” significantly more than the student group (P < 0.001).Regarding critical procedures, the clinician group emphasized foundational occlusal knowledge, while the student group prioritized meticulous adjustment (P = 0.001).
conclusionFuture practical courses should adopt a tiered training framework to meet the distinct needs of students and clinicians, thereby enhancing educational efficiency and outcomes.
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.