Trial reportBMC medical education2026
The effect of systematic aesthetic education of prosthodontics in undergraduate practical teaching - a randomized controlled study.
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
backgroundThe lack of systematic aesthetic education in prosthodontics training leaves undergraduate interns inadequately prepared to manage patients with aesthetic demands. To enhance the theory knowledge and clinical decision-making abilities of undergraduate dental students in aesthetic restoration, we implemented systematic aesthetic education in practical teaching courses.
methodsA total of 48 undergraduate dental students from the Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University were included, with 25 females and 23 males, aged 19–22 years, and the average age was (20.63 ± 0.97) years. The systematic aesthetic education curriculum included three modules: aesthetic basic theory courses (oral color science, oral morphology, oral photography, etc.), aesthetic diagnosis and treatment courses (concept of aesthetic zone, aesthetic analysis, aesthetic restoration treatment plans and operation training, etc.), and clinical practice courses (case analysis). Aesthetic knowledge tests were conducted before and after the courses to objectively evaluate the teaching effect. Subjective evaluation of teaching effect was obtained through questionnaires. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0. The chi-square test was used to compare the percentages between the two groups. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe objective evaluation of teaching effect showed statistically significant differences in aesthetic literacy, diagnosis, and clinical practice before and after the course (p < 0.05). The questionnaire results showed that students recognized their progress in treatment decision-making, aesthetic restoration, and doctor-patient communication. They also acknowledged their deficiencies in professional aesthetic knowledge and clinical critical thinking.
conclusionsSystematic aesthetic education, characterized by modular design and diversified teaching methods, can effectively improve the aesthetic theory knowledge and clinical practice ability of undergraduates and is worthy of promotion in dental education. It is still necessary to further improve the aesthetic education system and evaluation standards in the future.
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.