Dental EducationNCT07688668
AI Virtual Patient Training for Dental Student History Taking
A study testing Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training and Conventional Role-Play Training in people with Dental Education and Artificial Intelligence (AI), run by Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy at 1 site in Vietnam.
Trial summary
This randomized study evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-assisted virtual patient could support third-year dental students in practicing medical and dental history taking. Fifty-six students were assigned to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient training group or a conventional role-play group. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Education, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Patient
- What is being tested?
- Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training and Conventional Role-Play Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 56 participants
- Where
- 1 siteVietnam
- Study dates
- 30 May 2026to 18 Jun 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Third-year undergraduate dental students enrolled in the dental program at the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University.
- No previous history-taking training supported by a large language model.
- Willingness to participate and provision of written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Withdrawal from the study.
- Failure to complete the baseline assessment, scheduled training sessions, or postintervention assessment.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Vietnam1 site
Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University
Huế, Hue City, 530000
About this study
Official title: Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Virtual Patients for History-Taking Training in Dental Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
This randomized study evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-assisted virtual patient could support third-year dental students in practicing medical and dental history taking. Fifty-six students were assigned to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient training group or a conventional role-play group. Both groups completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and feedback criteria. The study compared changes in case-based history-taking competency as well as student satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the training methods.
Read the detailed description
This single-center, parallel-group randomized educational intervention was conducted among third-year undergraduate dental students at the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.
Eligible students were third-year dental students who had not previously received history-taking training supported by a large language model. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient group or a conventional role-play group. Each group included 28 students.
The Gemini-based virtual patient was developed as a curriculum-bounded learning tool for common oral and maxillofacial clinical scenarios. Its knowledge base included third-year dental curriculum materials, sample medical and dental records, a clinical assessment rubric, and anonymized case scenarios adapted from patient records. The virtual patient was instructed to act only as the patient, disclose information only in response to relevant questions, remain consistent with the predefined case, avoid providing diagnostic guidance during the interview, and provide rubric-aligned feedback after the student completed the encounter.
Students in the virtual-patient group typed questions to the Gemini-based virtual patient, documented the elicited history, and received automated feedback after each case. Students in the conventional role-play group practiced with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts and the same feedback criteria. Both groups completed four sessions over 2 weeks, with each session lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes. The groups received comparable scheduled practice time, clinical topics, number of cases, and feedback criteria.
The primary outcome was the change in case-based clinical history-taking competency score from baseline to postintervention assessment. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. The possible score range was 0 to 10 points. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to group allocation and questionnaire responses.
Secondary outcomes included student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of the training method. Satisfaction covered ease of use, naturalness of interaction, willingness to recommend the method, and diversity of clinical conditions. Perceived effectiveness included self-directed learning, interest in learning, communication and feedback skills, question phrasing, systematic and logical history taking, and stress during history-taking practice. All questionnaire items used a 5-point Likert scale.
- Conditions
- Dental Education, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Patient, History Taking, Large Language Model
- Being tested
- Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training, Conventional Role-Play Training
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient TrainingBehavioural
Students completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks using a Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual patient. Students typed questions, documented elicited medical and dental history, and received automated rubric-aligned feedback after each simulated patient encounter. The virtual patient used predefined curriculum-based case information and disclosed information only in response to relevant student questions.
Conventional Role-Play TrainingBehavioural
Students completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts. Students practiced eliciting medical and dental history and received feedback guided by the same assessment rubric used in the virtual-patient group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training | Experimental | Participants received Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual-patient training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using curriculum-bounded clinical cases and automated rubric-aligned feedback. Receives: Behavioral: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training |
| Conventional Role-Play Group | Active comparator | Participants received conventional role-play training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and rubric-guided feedback. Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Role-Play Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Case-Based Clinical History-Taking Competency Score
Change from baseline to postintervention in the composite case-based clinical history-taking competency score. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. Scores ranged from 0 to 10 points, with higher scores indicating better history-taking-related clinical competency. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to study-group allocation.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Secondary outcomes (2)
Student Satisfaction With the Training Method
Student satisfaction was assessed immediately after training using four individual 5-point Likert-scale items: ease of use, naturalness of interaction, willingness to recommend the training method, and diversity of clinical conditions. Each item was analyzed separately. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Measured: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Perceived Effectiveness of the Training Method
Perceived effectiveness was assessed immediately after training using six individual 5-point Likert-scale items: self-directed learning after class, interest in learning, communication skills and ability to receive feedback, question phrasing and expression, systematic and logical history taking, and stress during history-taking practice. Each item was analyzed separately. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived effectiveness.
Measured: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Jul 2026
- Study start30 May 2026
- Primary completion15 Jun 2026
- Study completion18 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of two parallel training arms: a Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual-patient group or a conventional role-play group. Both groups completed four history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical topics, numbers of cases, practice time, and feedback criteria.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 56 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Le Van Nhat Thang, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy
- Investigators
- Van Nhat Thang Le, DDS PhD, Principal investigator, Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07688668
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H2026/548
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 30 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 7 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 7 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Virtual Patients for History-Taking Training in Dental Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07688668
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H2026/548
- Conditions
- Dental Education, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Patient, History Taking, Large Language Model
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 56 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hue University of Medicine and PharmacyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 30 May 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 18 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 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 randomized study evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-assisted virtual patient could support third-year dental students in practicing medical and dental history taking. Fifty-six students were assigned to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient training group or a conventional role-play group. Both groups completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and feedback criteria. The study compared changes in case-based history-taking competency as well as student satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the training methods.
Detailed description
This single-center, parallel-group randomized educational intervention was conducted among third-year undergraduate dental students at the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.
Eligible students were third-year dental students who had not previously received history-taking training supported by a large language model. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a Gemini-based virtual-patient group or a conventional role-play group. Each group included 28 students.
The Gemini-based virtual patient was developed as a curriculum-bounded learning tool for common oral and maxillofacial clinical scenarios. Its knowledge base included third-year dental curriculum materials, sample medical and dental records, a clinical assessment rubric, and anonymized case scenarios adapted from patient records. The virtual patient was instructed to act only as the patient, disclose information only in response to relevant questions, remain consistent with the predefined case, avoid providing diagnostic guidance during the interview, and provide rubric-aligned feedback after the student completed the encounter.
Students in the virtual-patient group typed questions to the Gemini-based virtual patient, documented the elicited history, and received automated feedback after each case. Students in the conventional role-play group practiced with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts and the same feedback criteria. Both groups completed four sessions over 2 weeks, with each session lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes. The groups received comparable scheduled practice time, clinical topics, number of cases, and feedback criteria.
The primary outcome was the change in case-based clinical history-taking competency score from baseline to postintervention assessment. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. The possible score range was 0 to 10 points. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to group allocation and questionnaire responses.
Secondary outcomes included student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of the training method. Satisfaction covered ease of use, naturalness of interaction, willingness to recommend the method, and diversity of clinical conditions. Perceived effectiveness included self-directed learning, interest in learning, communication and feedback skills, question phrasing, systematic and logical history taking, and stress during history-taking practice. All questionnaire items used a 5-point Likert scale.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of two parallel training arms: a Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual-patient group or a conventional role-play group. Both groups completed four history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical topics, numbers of cases, practice time, and feedback criteria.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training | Experimental | Behavioral: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient TrainingParticipants received Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual-patient training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using curriculum-bounded clinical cases and automated rubric-aligned feedback. |
| Conventional Role-Play Group | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional Role-Play TrainingParticipants received conventional role-play training for dental history taking. They completed four training sessions over 2 weeks using comparable clinical cases, practice time, and rubric-guided feedback. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Third-year undergraduate dental students enrolled in the dental program at the Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University.
- No previous history-taking training supported by a large language model.
- Willingness to participate and provision of written informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Withdrawal from the study.
- Failure to complete the baseline assessment, scheduled training sessions, or postintervention assessment.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient TrainingStudents completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks using a Gemini-based artificial intelligence virtual patient. Students typed questions, documented elicited medical and dental history, and received automated rubric-aligned feedback after each simulated patient encounter. The virtual patient used predefined curriculum-based case information and disclosed information only in response to relevant student questions. | Behavioural | Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training |
| Conventional Role-Play TrainingStudents completed four 30- to 45-minute history-taking training sessions over 2 weeks with trained role-players or faculty members using standardized case scripts. Students practiced eliciting medical and dental history and received feedback guided by the same assessment rubric used in the virtual-patient group. | Behavioural | Conventional Role-Play Group |
Primary outcome
Change in Case-Based Clinical History-Taking Competency Score
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Change from baseline to postintervention in the composite case-based clinical history-taking competency score. Competency was assessed using five clinical scenarios representing common conditions in the third-year dental curriculum. Scores ranged from 0 to 10 points, with higher scores indicating better history-taking-related clinical competency. Each assessment was independently scored by two faculty assessors who were blinded to study-group allocation.
2 secondary outcomes
Student Satisfaction With the Training Method
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
Perceived Effectiveness of the Training Method
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention
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 7 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Dental Education
Not yet recruiting
Individualized Management of Plaque-Related Gingival Inflammation in Routine Dental Practice
Plaque-Induced Gingivitis
Not yet recruiting
WhatsApp Messages to Improve Mothers' Oral Health Knowledge and Children's Toothbrushing
Oral Health, Dental Caries
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Telephonic and Digital Postoperative Follow-up Communication Strategies on Patient Compliance, Clinical Recovery, and Quality of Life After Dental Extraction
Tooth Extraction, Postoperative Care
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effect of Dental Education Duration on Halitosis and Associated Factors
Halitosis, Dentistry
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Gingivitis
Gingivitis
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.
Van Nhat Thang Le, DDS PhD principal investigator
Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training and Conventional Role-Play Training in people with Dental Education and Artificial Intelligence (AI), run by Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy at 1 site in Vietnam.
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 3 inclusion and 2 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 7 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 Vietnam. 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?
Change in Case-Based Clinical History-Taking Competency Score (time frame: Baseline and immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention). 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 7 Jul 2026.