Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the objective performance and subjective perception of two endodontic techniques for canal ledge management among dental students and to assess their learning experience and future clinical intentions.Methods: Dental students with prior mechanical instrumentation experience participated in a controlled experimental setting.Students performed canal ledge management using the T-Mode and manual insertion techniques under standardized conditions.Outcomes included procedural time, perceived difficulty, need for supervision, perceived performance, and preference.Statistical analysis was performed using paired ttests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Chi-square tests, Fisher's exact test, McNemar test, Cohen's kappa, and effect size analysis.Results: The T-Mode technique demonstrated significantly shorter operating time compared to the manual insertion technique (p < 0.05).No significant differences were observed in perceived learning difficulty, application difficulty, or need for supervision between techniques.While most students correctly identified the faster technique at the group level, individual agreement with actual performance was weak.Preference and perceived outcome quality showed no statistically significant differences, although a tendency toward the T-Mode was observed.Most students reported willingness to adopt T-Mode alone or in a combined approach in future clinical practice.Although objective performance favored the automated technique, subjective evaluations showed limited concordance with measured outcomes.Conclusion: Students demonstrated flexible, context-dependent clinical decision-making and a strong inclination toward integrating new techniques into future practice.These findings highlight the value of combining objective and subjective assessments in endodontic education and suggest a potential role for structured early exposure to contemporary techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: