Dental Students' Confidence and Competency in Root Canal Treatment Across Different Phases of the Dental‐Program: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This prospective cohort study evaluated dental students' confidence and competency in root canal treatment across their dental programme, encompassing the transition from preclinical laboratory to clinical patient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 23 dental students was assessed during four phases of the DDS program over three academic semesters (18-month calendar year). Data collection occurred at the following stages: upon completion of the preclinical endodontic laboratory course (P1); at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Clinical Care I course, where students performed single-rooted canal treatments on patients (P2); after training with plastic/artificial multi-rooted teeth (P3); and upon completion of the Comprehensive Clinical Care II course, where students performed multi-rooted canal treatments on patients (P4). Self-reported confidence levels were measured using Likert scales, while root canal treatment competency was evaluated based on final radiographic outcomes. Focus group discussions explored students' perceptions of self-confidence and competence across the four phases and during the transition from preclinical to clinical practice. Quantitative data were analysed using statistical methods, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Confidence levels increased from P1 to P2, reaching a peak at P3 and P4. Participants demonstrated higher technical competency in root canal obturations during patient care than in laboratory work. Key themes were expectations/feelings and technique, with pulp chamber access opening identified as the most challenging procedure. The transition to clinical care induced fear, anxiety, and insecurity initially, but participants reported reduced anxiety and improved technical performance when working with patients. CONCLUSION: Dental students exhibited enhanced competence and confidence in endodontic treatments when performed in the clinical setting, reflecting positive progression across the evaluated requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".