Medical-AI trial: AI feedback vs. instructor feedback in dental education (preclinical simulation lab) (NCT07682116)
An interventional study in a preclinical restorative-dentistry lab, where third-year dental students practicing restorations on simulated teeth received either AI-generated feedback or human-instructor feedback, comparing effects on practical performance, in-the-moment (state) anxiety, and student perception. 140 participants; completed.
Trial overview (primary data)
- StatusCompleted
- ConditionsPreclinical Dental Education
- InterventionsBEHAVIORAL: Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback, BEHAVIORAL: Human Instructor Feedback
- SponsorSeda Nur Karakaş
- Target enrollment140 participants
- Period2026-03-13 〜 2026-03-31
Key points
- An interventional study comparing AI-generated feedback and instructor feedback in the preclinical (simulated-teeth) restorative practice of third-year students.
- Evaluated by practical performance (primary), state anxiety, and student perception.
- Investigates whether AI-generated feedback can be an effective educational support tool in preclinical dental training.
- Target 140; completed in 2026, with a design that measures psychological aspects alongside performance.
- A comparison/validation stage, not an establishment of AI-support efficacy.
- Beyond practical performance, it evaluates state anxiety and how students received the feedback.
1The preclinical dental laboratory
Dental skills are built before treating patients through preclinical training on "simulated teeth." Manual techniques such as filling and cutting improve through on-the-spot feedback from an instructor, but instructor time and numbers are limited, making thorough one-on-one guidance for every student hard to provide. AI could, in principle, return more frequent and uniform feedback on procedures during practice.
2Compared with instructor feedback
This trial compares AI-generated feedback with human-instructor feedback in a lab where third-year dental students perform restorations on simulated teeth. Per the registry summary, students trained with one of the feedback types, and effects were evaluated across several dimensions: (1) practical performance score, (2) state anxiety, and (3) student perception.
The primary endpoint is the practical performance score; the target is 140 participants, and the study is at the completed stage.
3Not measuring the result alone
What this study evaluates is not only practical performance. It includes the psychological side of the learner, which marks the design.
| Aspect evaluated | Content |
|---|---|
| Practical performance score | The primary endpoint, measuring the result |
| State anxiety | Anxiety felt during the session itself |
| Student perception | How the feedback was received |
In education, the quality of feedback affects not only learning but the psychology of the learner. Dental skills are acquired before seeing patients, in preclinical practice on model teeth, and the number and time of instructors limit how much individual guidance each student can receive. The target is 140 participants and the study is complete.
Why it matters
AI in professional education is a high-interest area. A design that measures not only performance but also anxiety and perception offers a useful reference for evaluating AI instructional support in medical and skills training (this trial does not establish efficacy).
FAQ
What is preclinical training?
Did AI feedback prove superior to instructors?
Sources (primary)
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov (U.S. NIH/NLM, public domain). This site does not provide medical advice. Verify the latest and exact details with the official source. This site is not endorsed or certified by the NIH/NLM.
- ClinicalTrials.gov (study record, original)
- NCT ID: NCT07682116