ArticleBMC medical education2026
Multidimensional training in dental anatomy teaching of oral anatomy and physiology: practice and effectiveness.
Article 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
objectiveTo evaluate whether introducing 2-D "tooth-drawing" and 3-D "tooth-identification" exercises into conventional wax-carving sessions improves dental anatomy cognition among Chinese dental undergraduates.
methodsThree consecutive cohorts were compared using ANCOVA with pre-course Grade Point Average (GPA) as covariate. The control group (2020 Cohort, n = 126) received traditional wax carving only. The 2021 cohort (n = 102) added supervised tooth-drawing practice and a summative tooth identification test. The 2022 cohort (n = 99) further integrated systematic drawing-to-identification scaffolding into instruction. Outcome measures included carving, identification, drawing and theoretical exam scores, plus a 5-point Likert student satisfaction survey.
resultsAfter adjusting for Pre-course GPA, significant differences were observed across cohorts in both theoretical and practical assessments. Tooth carving scores improved sequentially (2020: 83.23 ± 5.42; 2021: 84.77 ± 5.06; 2022: 85.11 ± 4.90), with the 2022 cohort significantly outperforming the 2020 cohort (p = 0.039). Dental anatomy theory scores showed a highly significant difference across cohorts (p = 0.002), where the 2020 cohort scored significantly lower than both the 2021 and 2022 cohorts (p < 0.001). Furthermore, extracted tooth identification accuracy markedly increased from 2021 to 2022 (62.23 ± 24.33 vs. 80.63 ± 24.23, p < 0.001), and tooth-drawing scores also showed a significant improvement (p = 0.003). Student satisfaction was high (mean 4.27/5), with 84.5% of respondents agreeing that multidimensional training enhanced their understanding of form-function relationships, and 87.6% reporting improved three-dimensional spatial imagination.
conclusionThis quasi-experimental historical-cohort study suggests that embedding structured "draw-identify-carve" training was associated with improved practical performance. The low-technology approach may be adaptable to resource-limited settings with access to paper, pencils, and extracted teeth, providing a scalable complement to high-technology solutions.
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.