Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT06567236

E4D Compare Adapted to Preclinical Endodontics

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Self-Assessment Self-Perception

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Texas A&M School of Dentistry

Dallas, Texas, 75246, United States

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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.

Treatment and study plan

3D software

Other

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

Primary outcomes

  1. Self-assessment - traditional method vs traditional method plus 3D software method

    Time frame: baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks

    Compare self-assessment after traditional method only and with extra 3D software method

  2. Grading - traditional method vs traditional method plus 3D software method

    Time frame: baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks

    Compare technical skills after traditional method only and with extra 3D software method

Secondary outcomes

  1. Grading - traditional/visual grading vs 3D software grading

    Time frame: baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks and 7 weeks

    Compare traditional/visual grading to 3D software grading using different tolerance levels

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Texas A&M University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2023
First posted
Aug 22, 2024
Registry last updated
Aug 22, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.