Preclinical Dental Education
Conditions
Brief summary
This study aims to compare the effects of artificial intelligence-generated feedback and human instructor feedback on learning outcomes in preclinical restorative dentistry education. Third-year dental students performing restorative procedures on simulated teeth received either AI-generated feedback or instructor feedback during training sessions. The effects of the feedback methods were evaluated using practical performance scores, state anxiety levels, and student perception measures. The study investigates whether AI-generated feedback can serve as an effective educational support tool in preclinical dental training.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALArtificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback
Participants received formative feedback generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was based on predefined evaluation criteria and was provided to support practical skill development and learning.
BEHAVIORALHuman Instructor Feedback
Participants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria.
Sponsors
Seda Nur Karakaş
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Participants were assigned to one of two parallel groups receiving either artificial intelligence-generated feedback or human instructor feedback during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Educational outcomes, including practical performance, state anxiety, and student perceptions, were compared between groups.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Third-year dental students enrolled in the preclinical restorative dentistry course at Cukurova University Faculty of Dentistry. Attendance at the scheduled practical training session. Provision of written informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
Students who declined to participate. Students who did not complete the practical training session. Students with incomplete performance assessment or questionnaire data.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Practical Performance Score | At completion of the preclinical training session (approximately 2 weeks after study initiation) | Students' practical performance was evaluated using a standardized rubric consisting of eight assessment criteria for preclinical restorative dentistry procedures. Total scores ranged from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating better practical performance. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in State Anxiety | Baseline (before the practical session) and immediately after completion of the practical session (approximately 2 hours). | State anxiety was assessed using the 5-item State Anxiety Inventory (STAIS-5), a shortened version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The total score ranges from 5 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater state anxiety. A score of 10 or higher indicates clinically significant state anxiety. |
| Student Perception of the Feedback Method | Immediately after completion of the practical training session (approximately 2 hours after baseline). | Student perception was assessed using an 8-item, 5-point Likert questionnaire. The reported outcome was the mean questionnaire score, ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, with higher scores indicating more positive perceptions of the feedback method. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed