Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Traditional face-to-face versus distance learning of local anesthesia injection technique by novice learners.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocal anesthesia is an essential skill of pain control for most dental procedures, commonly taught through face-to-face learning (FFL). Distant learning (DL) has emerged as an alternative teaching method for many techniques in medicine.
aimTo evaluate the performance scores of DL compared with FFL in teaching maxillary infiltrative local anesthesia to novice learners.
methodsA prospective randomized trial included 93 students randomized into two groups for applying infiltrative local anesthesia of the maxillary arch: FFL (n = 47) and DL (n = 46). The evaluation was conducted by two examiners using a performance checklist and a global rating tool. Agreement between the examiners was calculated, and performance scores of the participants on 11 well defined tasks in the process of infiltration were compared. Participants’ satisfaction was assessed via a questionnaire.
resultsLevels of completion of each infiltration step were not statistically significantly different between the learning groups (p > 0.05). Group differences in the duration of the total infiltration procedure (76.06 ± 20.36, and 83.39 ± 24.05 s, for the FFL and DL groups, respectively) also were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.116). Both methods were reported as efficient by participants. While nearly all students enjoyed the learning process in both groups, all FFL participants felt confident performing the infiltration and 11% less confident in the DL group.
conclusionThe results suggest that distant learning of administering infiltration local anesthesia was as effective as in-person learning by novice learners. Students appreciated the respective method of learning, with more reservations to perform the procedure by those in the DL group.
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.