Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Exploring the role of AI in dental education: a mixed-method experimental study from Pakistan.
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCase-based learning (CBL) is a cornerstone of dental education, fostering critical thinking and clinical reasoning. In Pakistan, challenges like low facilitator-to-student ratios and faculty shortages hinder CBL effectiveness. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential solutions through scalable, structured facilitation, yet its role in dental CBL remains underexplored.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI) as a facilitator in case-based learning (CBL) for dental education. It aimed to compare learning outcomes between AI- and human-facilitated sessions using a randomized crossover design, and to explore students’ perceptions and experiences of AI-mediated learning through focus group discussions. METHODOLOGY: A sequential mixed-methods design (QUAN → QUAL) was employed with 16 final-year BDS students in a randomized two-period crossover trial. Phase 1 compared AI-facilitated (via ChatGPT-3.5) and human-facilitated CBL using pre- and post-test MCQs, analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests. Phase 2 explored student experiences through focus group discussions (FGDs), analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s framework. Ethical approvals were obtained (ERC #2023-6789-12345, IRB-789/LCMD/2023).
resultsBoth AI- and human-facilitated groups showed significant post-test score improvements (p < 0.012), with no significant inter-group differences (p ≥ 0.130). AI excelled in factual recall and structured feedback, while human facilitation enhanced emotional engagement and clinical reasoning. FGDs revealed themes of AI’s consistency but limited emotional depth, with students favoring a hybrid model.
conclusionAI-facilitated CBL yields comparable academic outcomes to human facilitation, offering scalability in resource-limited settings. However, human facilitators remain vital for emotional and adaptive learning. A blended approach, integrating AI’s structure with human mentorship, is recommended for optimal dental education.
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.