Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Efficacy of a hybrid case-based learning and simulated clinical encounter model versus lecture-based learning in dental education.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent dental education faces challenges in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical application. Traditional Lecture-Based Learning (LBL) often fails to alleviate student anxiety or foster deep cognitive engagement. This study explores the efficacy of a hybrid teaching model that integrates Case-Based Learning (CBL) and Scene Simulation Teaching (SST) with dental simulator practice, comparing it with the traditional Lecture-Based Learning (LBL) model.
methodsA randomized controlled study was conducted with 20 fifth-year undergraduate dental students from the 2018 cohort at the Affiliated Nanshan Hospital of Shenzhen University. Participants were randomly allocated to either the experimental group (Hybrid CBL-SST-Simulator) or the control group (Traditional LBL). The Endodontics course served as the context. Outcomes were assessed across four dimensions: theoretical knowledge (written exam), clinical thinking (case analysis), doctor-patient communication (SEGUE Framework), and clinical skills (preparation of Class II cavity and access opening).
resultsStudents in the Hybrid group demonstrated significantly superior performance in clinical thinking (87.40 ± 5.20 vs. 73.90 ± 8.41, P < 0.05) and doctor-patient communication skills (17.80 ± 1.89 vs. 14.20 ± 2.18, P < 0.05) compared to the LBL group. However, there were no statistically significant differences regarding theoretical knowledge scores (P > 0.05) or clinical operational skills (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe hybrid CBL-SST model significantly enhances clinical reasoning and communication skills by promoting “Interactive” and “Constructive” learning behaviors. While it does not surpass traditional methods in rote knowledge or pure manual dexterity, it effectively bridges the gap between theory and practice. This approach offers a promising strategy for preclinical 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.