Dental Students' Perceptions of Preheated Resin Composite Use for Direct Restorations and Indirect Luting Procedures

Introduction The aim of this publication is to evaluate undergraduate dental students' perceptions of integrating preheated restorative composite resin (PRCR) into routine care for direct restorations and as a luting material for bonded partial restorations. Materials and Methods In a 6‐month, single‐center, prospective exploratory study, fifth‐ and sixth‐year students were assigned non‐randomly according to existing clinical rotations to PRCR ( n = 12) or comparison ( n = 41) cohorts. Perceptions were measured with 5‐point Likert instruments at baseline and study end. An end‐study survey was administered only to the PRCR cohort. Nonparametric tests compared groups. Results Baseline imbalances favoured the comparison cohort on several items. After six months, most between‐group differences were no longer statistically significant. However, stress during assembly of bonded partial restorations was lower in the PRCR cohort (2.67 ± 0.98 vs. 3.49 ± 0.93; p < 0.05), as was stress about setting time (2.25 ± 1.36 vs. 3.58 ± 1.20; p < 0.05). End‐study responses from the PRCR cohort suggested high overall acceptability among the 12 exposed students. Students considered prior training essential and expressed a strong intention to adopt the technique despite its cost. Conclusions Integrating PRCR into teaching clinics was feasible and acceptable among the 12 exposed students. However, the small and unequal cohorts, non‐random allocation, and baseline imbalances preclude causal interpretation and do not establish equivalence or superiority. Outcomes were self‐reported, and objective clinical benefits were not assessed. These single‐center findings may not be generalizable and require confirmation in larger, balanced, multi‐center studies incorporating objective outcomes.