E4D Compare Adapted to Preclinical Endodontics

E4D Compare Adapted to Evaluate Pulpal Access Cavity Preparation in the D2 Preclinical Endodontics Course: Educational Randomized Controlled Trial

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT06567236

Enrollment

Registered

2024-08-22

Start date

2023-02-27

Completion date

2023-05-08

Last updated

2024-08-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Self-Assessment, Self-Perception

Keywords

Endodontics, Predental education, Educational technology, Teaching methods

Brief summary

Based on pilot study's promising results, we decided to further investigate the impact of adapting Planmeca Romexis Compare software to evaluate pulpal access preparations on second-year dental students' technical performance, self-evaluation skills and opinions. No educational records, grades, coursework, or any other assignments that are completed as part of the regular class will be analyzed as part of this study.

Interventions

OTHER3D software

Participants in the experimental arm will receive extra training on Planmeca Romexis Compare Software adapted to evaluate endodontic access preparation.

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

OTHER

Masking

DOUBLE (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Second-year dental students enrolled in DDDS 719 Integrated Practice of Dentistry Lab II during 2022-2023 at Texas A&M School of Dentistry * Students who have completed fixed prosthodontics preclinical course * Students attending the endodontics preclinical course.

Exclusion criteria

* First, third and fourth-year dental students at Texas A&M School of Dentistry * Second-year dental students NOT enrolled in DDDS 719 Integrated Practice of Dentistry Lab II during 2022-2023 at Texas A&M School of Dentistry * Students who are not interested in participating.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Self-assessment - traditional method vs traditional method plus 3D software method	baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks	Compare self-assessment after traditional method only and with extra 3D software method
Grading - traditional method vs traditional method plus 3D software method	baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks	Compare technical skills after traditional method only and with extra 3D software method

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Grading - traditional/visual grading vs 3D software grading	baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks	Compare traditional/visual grading to 3D software grading using different tolerance levels

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026