The Effectiveness of Live and Prerecorded Video Demonstrations in Teaching Restorative Dentistry to Undergraduate Students: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mastering complex psychomotor skills is essential in undergraduate dental education; however, traditional live demonstrations (LDs) face limitations such as high instructor-to-student ratios and restricted viewing angles. Prerecorded video demonstrations (VDs) offer scalable, repeatable instructions and the ability to integrate multimedia cues but may lack real-time interaction and immediate feedback. There is limited evidence comparing these teaching modalities, particularly regarding gender differences, in the acquisition of restorative dentistry skills. Objective: This study aimed to (1) compare first-year dental students' knowledge acquisition and procedural performance following a LD versus a prerecorded VD of a class II amalgam restoration and (2) evaluate whether gender influences outcomes within each demonstration method. Methods: A total of 51 students enrolled in an Introduction to Operative Dentistry course (2024-2025) participated in this cohort study. The students were randomized into 2 groups: LD (26/51, 51%) or VD (25/51, 49%). Both groups received identical lectures and demonstrations of a standardized class II cavity preparation and amalgam restoration. Knowledge was assessed via preprocedural and postprocedural multiple-choice questionnaires, and the procedural performance was graded by 2 blinded raters using a 10-point rubric. Student perceptions were measured with an 8-item Likert survey. Mixed ANOVA and independent and paired 2-tailed t tests evaluated between-group and within-group differences, while gender analyses used factorial ANOVA. Interrater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient=0.991) was confirmed. Results: The baseline knowledge scores did not differ between the 2 groups. After the demonstration, knowledge was significantly higher with LD (mean 71.22, SD 17.3) than VD (mean 58.4, SD 21.7; P=.02; Cohen d=0.65). The LD method demonstrated significant within-group improvement (P<.001; Cohen d=0.83). Procedural grading favored LD (mean 8.3, SD 0.9 vs mean 7.9, SD 1.0); however, results were not statistically significant (P=.08; Cohen d=0.50). No significant differences were found in the student perception survey. Gender analysis revealed that male students in the LD group achieved higher postknowledge scores (mean 74.0, SD 12.3 vs mean 55.0, SD 24.3; P=.03), greater score improvements (P=.03), and higher grading scores (mean 8.5, SD 0.6 vs mean 7.6, SD 1.3; P=.03) compared to those in the VD group. No significant differences were observed among female students. Conclusions: LDs yielded superior knowledge acquisition and better performance compared to VDs, particularly for male students. VDs remain a viable alternative when supplemented with interactive elements and instructor feedback. Blended teaching models integrating live and video methods may optimize the demonstration experience for the students, thus enhancing the learning outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".