BMC Med Educ. 2026 Feb 4. doi: 10.1186/s12909-026-08715-9. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The existing undergraduate training uses comprehensive models, including theoretical, preclinical, and clinical practice, and aims to provide the candidate with the specific knowledge and skills required to perform the relevant treatments. The prevalence of integrating new systems in endodontic education and their contribution to the applicability of endodontic treatments have not been evaluated from the perspective of trainees and educators before/after graduation. This study aimed to determine which endodontic preclinical training model contributes more to clinical applicability and success. In light of the obtained data, it seeks to raise awareness by proposing the most appropriate education model or model combination.
METHODS: A questionnaire was initially prepared and transferred to an online platform. The survey consists of 3 parts and 36 questions in total. The first part is about the participants’ demographics. The second section assessed information on endodontic preclinical training models participants experienced during undergraduate/postgraduate training, their general perspectives on endodontics, and their self-assessment of the contribution of these models to clinical practice competence. The third aimed to determine participants’ knowledge of the material properties used in endodontic simulation, their advantages and disadvantages, and their preferred model based on trainee and educator perspectives. After validating the questionnaire, the data were analysed using Fisher-Freeman-Halton, Pearson chi-square, Yates correction, and Fisher Exact Test with Monte Carlo correction for categorical variables (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: The internal consistency and construct validity demonstrated strong inter-item correlations (r = 0.81-0.90), indicating high internal coherence. The content validity index for all items exceeded the acceptable threshold (≥ 0.80). The distribution of participants (n = 238) was as follows: students (46.8%), dentists (29.1%), PhD students/residents (9.7%), endodontists (7.6%), and lecturers/educators (8.9%). Most participants reported completing preclinical training with only extracted teeth (54.2%). The preclinical training model the current students received had a statistically significant content, with simulated models included (p < 0.003). Among dentists and students trained solely on extracted teeth, those not sympathetic to endodontics were significantly more common (p = 0.042). Those who responded that they understood and practised endodontics better had been trained by simulated models and phantom bodies in addition to extracted teeth (P < 0.001). Participants generally reported that combining extracted teeth, simulated models, and phantom scenarios contributed more to endodontic education (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating simulated models into the endodontic training module is highly promising. Advances in materials science and simulation technologies enable the development of realistic models.
PMID:41634668 | DOI:10.1186/s12909-026-08715-9
