Preclinical Dental EducationAIF-HFNCT07682116
AI-Generated Versus Human Feedback in Preclinical Restorative Dentistry
A study testing Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback and Human Instructor Feedback in people with Preclinical Dental Education, run by Seda Nur Karakaş at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This study aims to compare the effects of artificial intelligence-generated feedback and human instructor feedback on learning outcomes in preclinical restorative dentistry education. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Preclinical Dental Education
- What is being tested?
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback and Human Instructor Feedback
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 140 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 13 Mar 2026to 31 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Third-year dental students enrolled in the preclinical restorative dentistry course at Cukurova University Faculty of Dentistry.
- Attendance at the scheduled practical training session. Provision of written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Students who declined to participate. Students who did not complete the practical training session. Students with incomplete performance assessment or questionnaire data.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Cukurova University Faculty of Dentistry
Adana
About this study
Official title: Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback Versus Human Feedback in Preclinical Restorative Dentistry: Effects on Performance, State Anxiety, and Student Perception
This study aims to compare the effects of artificial intelligence-generated feedback and human instructor feedback on learning outcomes in preclinical restorative dentistry education. Third-year dental students performing restorative procedures on simulated teeth received either AI-generated feedback or instructor feedback during training sessions. The effects of the feedback methods were evaluated using practical performance scores, state anxiety levels, and student perception measures. The study investigates whether AI-generated feedback can serve as an effective educational support tool in preclinical dental training.
- Conditions
- Preclinical Dental Education
- Being tested
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback, Human Instructor Feedback
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Artificial Intelligence-Generated FeedbackBehavioural
Participants received formative feedback generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was based on predefined evaluation criteria and was provided to support practical skill development and learning.
Human Instructor FeedbackBehavioural
Participants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Generated Feedback | Experimental | Participants received formative feedback generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria and was intended to support students' practical skill development. Receives: Behavioral: Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback |
| Human Instructor Feedback | Active comparator | Participants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to the same predefined evaluation criteria used in the AI-generated feedback group. Receives: Behavioral: Human Instructor Feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Practical Performance Score
Students' practical performance was evaluated using a standardized rubric consisting of eight assessment criteria for preclinical restorative dentistry procedures. Total scores ranged from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating better practical performance.
Measured: At completion of the preclinical training session (approximately 2 weeks after study initiation)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Change in State Anxiety
State anxiety was assessed using the 5-item State Anxiety Inventory (STAIS-5), a shortened version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The total score ranges from 5 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater state anxiety. A score of 10 or higher indicates clinically significant state anxiety.
Measured: Baseline (before the practical session) and immediately after completion of the practical session (approximately 2 hours).
Student Perception of the Feedback Method
Student perception was assessed using an 8-item, 5-point Likert questionnaire. The reported outcome was the mean questionnaire score, ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, with higher scores indicating more positive perceptions of the feedback method.
Measured: Immediately after completion of the practical training session (approximately 2 hours after baseline).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Jul 2026
- Study start13 Mar 2026
- Primary completion13 Mar 2026
- Study completion31 Mar 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Preclinical Dental EducationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were assigned to one of two parallel groups receiving either artificial intelligence-generated feedback or human instructor feedback during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Educational outcomes, including practical performance, state anxiety, and student perceptions, were compared between groups.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 140 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Seda Nur Karakaş
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Seda Nur Karakaş, Cukurova University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07682116
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- REC163-42-2026
- Acronym
- AIF-HF
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 2 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback Versus Human Feedback in Preclinical Restorative Dentistry: Effects on Performance, State Anxiety, and Student Perception
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07682116
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AIF-HF / REC163-42-2026
- Conditions
- Preclinical Dental Education
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 140 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Seda Nur KarakaşUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 13 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to compare the effects of artificial intelligence-generated feedback and human instructor feedback on learning outcomes in preclinical restorative dentistry education. Third-year dental students performing restorative procedures on simulated teeth received either AI-generated feedback or instructor feedback during training sessions. The effects of the feedback methods were evaluated using practical performance scores, state anxiety levels, and student perception measures. The study investigates whether AI-generated feedback can serve as an effective educational support tool in preclinical dental training.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were assigned to one of two parallel groups receiving either artificial intelligence-generated feedback or human instructor feedback during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Educational outcomes, including practical performance, state anxiety, and student perceptions, were compared between groups.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Generated Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Artificial Intelligence-Generated FeedbackParticipants received formative feedback generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria and was intended to support students' practical skill development. |
| Human Instructor Feedback | Active comparator | Behavioral: Human Instructor FeedbackParticipants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to the same predefined evaluation criteria used in the AI-generated feedback group. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Third-year dental students enrolled in the preclinical restorative dentistry course at Cukurova University Faculty of Dentistry.
- Attendance at the scheduled practical training session. Provision of written informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Students who declined to participate. Students who did not complete the practical training session. Students with incomplete performance assessment or questionnaire data.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence-Generated FeedbackParticipants received formative feedback generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was based on predefined evaluation criteria and was provided to support practical skill development and learning. | Behavioural | AI-Generated Feedback |
| Human Instructor FeedbackParticipants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria. | Behavioural | Human Instructor Feedback |
Primary outcome
Practical Performance Score
Time frame: At completion of the preclinical training session (approximately 2 weeks after study initiation)
Students' practical performance was evaluated using a standardized rubric consisting of eight assessment criteria for preclinical restorative dentistry procedures. Total scores ranged from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating better practical performance.
2 secondary outcomes
Change in State Anxiety
Time frame: Baseline (before the practical session) and immediately after completion of the practical session (approximately 2 hours).
Student Perception of the Feedback Method
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the practical training session (approximately 2 hours after baseline).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Preclinical Dental Education
Recruiting
AI-Driven Digital Self-Assessment Framework for Preclinical Tooth Preparation
Dental Education
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback and Human Instructor Feedback in people with Preclinical Dental Education, run by Seda Nur Karakaş at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Practical Performance Score (time frame: At completion of the preclinical training session (approximately 2 weeks after study initiation)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Jul 2026.