Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the learning in the implant dentistry hands-on course to that of the flipped classroom (FC) and the traditional lecture cohorts (control). Materials and methods In this study,80 students were enrolled for the first time in an implant dentistry program. Subsequently, they were divided into two groups. The first, the FC group, which had free access to a video with a PowerPoint presentation on the Chaoxing-WHU-MOOC platform about the implant placement on first molar sites before class. The second, the control group, which attended a didactic lecture describing implant practice on the first molar site via a bidirectional multimedia interactive teaching demonstration and then operated on a simulation model. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and the deviation gauge were utilized to analyze the accuracy of the implant placement in the students’ models. An online satisfaction questionnaire was distributed to both groups one week after the class. Results The linear deviation of the CBCT examination did not show any statistical difference between the two groups concerning cervical, apex, and angular. A significant buccal deviation was observed in the control group compared with the FC group (mean: 0.7436 mm vs. 0.2875 mm, p = 0.0035), according to the restoration-level deviation gauge. A total of 74.36% of students in the FC group placed implant within 0.5 mm buccal-to-lingual deviations, but only 41.03% of students in the control group reached within 0.5 mm buccal-to-lingual deviation ranges. Additionally, 91.67% of the students in the FC group and 97.5% of the students in the control group were satisfied with the practical implant class. Conclusion FC was more effective than a didactic lecture for implant dentistry practical skill acquisition.
Wu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: