Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Real-time AI feedback for novice intraoral imaging - a pilot three-arm randomized 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis pilot randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted solo workflow for intraoral photography training. The study examined whether real‑time AI feedback could enhance photographic quality, procedural efficiency, learner self‑efficacy, and patient comfort compared with conventional approaches.
methodsFifty-four first‑year dental students were randomly assigned to one of three groups: assistant‑supported workflow (four‑handed technique, control), solo workflow without AI support, and solo workflow with AI‑driven real‑time feedback. All participants performed standardized intraoral photography tasks. The primary outcome was a composite photographic quality score derived from expert ratings of three standardized intraoral views (frontal intercuspal, frontal open-bite, and lateral intercuspal), each rated on a 0–10 scale (total range 0–30). Data were analyzed using ANOVA; mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
resultsInter‑rater reliability for expert image ratings was good (ICC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.90). The AI-supported solo group achieved the highest composite quality scores (18.2 ± 2.7). This was significantly superior to the unassisted solo group (15.8 ± 3.3), with a mean difference (MD) of 2.4 points (95% CI: 0.45 to 4.35; p = 0.027) and a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.80). Compared to the assistant-supported group (17.1 ± 2.1), the difference was not statistically significant (MD = 1.1; 95% CI: -0.65 to 2.85; p = 0.28). Secondary outcomes, including task completion time (F(2,51) = 1.25, p = 0.30), self‑efficacy (all p > 0.40), and patient‑reported comfort (χ²(4, N = 54) = 5.2, p = 0.27), showed no significant between‑group differences.
conclusionIn this single‑centre pilot trial, an AI‑assisted solo workflow enabled novice dental students to achieve higher intraoral photographic quality than unguided solo operation, with performance broadly comparable to a conventional four‑handed assistant‑supported workflow and without detectable compromises in efficiency, self‑efficacy, or patient‑reported comfort. These preliminary findings may serve as a valuable adjunct for autonomous skill acquisition, warranting further validation in larger, multi-institutional cohorts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. This study evaluated an educational training intervention rather than a clinical treatment, and prospective trial registration was not required under institutional policy at the time of initiation. Ethical approval was obtained from Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital Ethics Committee (SH9H-2022-T30-1).
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.