ArticleBMC medical education2026
Perceived effectiveness: simulation teeth in dental education.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTypodont simulation is a key part of undergraduate dental training globally, allowing prospective dentists to repeatedly practice the necessary skills to safely and effectively care for their future patients. Anecdotally, and in previous small studies, typodonts fall short when compared to what they aim to replicate: human teeth. This study aimed to evaluate opinions on the effectiveness, use, advantages and disadvantages of typodonts.
methodsThis study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from 338 dentists and dental students using an online questionnaire, evaluating their opinion on the effectiveness of typodont simulation. Likert scales to 32 questions collected opinions on effectiveness of various typodont attributes such as tactile feedback and appearance. Responses were analysed to examine differences in opinion across participant groups using the appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests; free-text responses were analysed thematically.
resultsTypodonts were used extensively in all surveyed institutions. They were considered to be moderately effective and readily available for repeated practice of direct and indirect preparations. Improvement is required in several key areas: caries simulation, anatomical layering and endodontic simulation, particularly in relation to material properties related to tactile realism. There were varying opinions on cost and environmental impact when comparing methods of manufacture. Standardisation and customisation of typodonts for education was valued by all.
conclusionAnatomical layering, tactile realism and caries are important factors to students and dentists in simulation education. Traditionally manufactured typodont were used by the majority of those surveyed but lack key qualities such as realistic tactile feedback required for effective simulation of human teeth, simulation of caries and root canal anatomy. There is potential for more modern methods of manufacture such as 3D-printing to assist in this need for better representation of the complex anatomy and feel of teeth, positively impacting both patient safety and dental education, yet these still fall short in realistic haptic feel and caries simulations. Alongside these features, environmental, financial and availability should be considered.
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.