Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Utilising a web-based e-learning platform for orthodontic case analysis training: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn orthodontic case analysis, structured clinical reasoning is required to achieve a diagnosis and establish a treatment decision. In this randomised controlled trial, a web-based training app was compared with conventional analogue case planning in undergraduate dental students.
methodsTwenty-eight undergraduate dental students from RWTH Aachen University were randomised to either a digital training group, using the web-based app Orthotrainer, or an analogue training group, performing conventional case analyses with physical models and printed diagnostic records. After a baseline knowledge and online readiness assessment, both groups completed two standardised training sessions. Following the sessions, the ease of use was assessed using the System Usability Scale and the User Experience Questionnaire. The final analogue module exam tested knowledge transfer. Additionally, 27 orthodontic educators from four university orthodontic departments were surveyed regarding analogue correction practices.
resultsBaseline orthodontic knowledge was comparable between groups (analogue: M = 13.07 ± 3.15 vs digital: M = 12.86 ± 2.41, p = 0.842). Both groups demonstrated significant performance improvement across training sessions separated by three weeks, ß = 8.31, 95% CI [2.66, 13.96], p = 0.005, without overall group differences. Exploratory subarea analyses revealed analogue superiority in extraoral assessment (b = 23.37, 95% CI [7.31, 39.42], p < 0.001), digital advantage in radiographic evaluation (b = -17.34, 95% CI [-33.40, -1.29], p = 0.002) and no difference in the model analysis. There were no differences between the groups in the final module exam. The usability assessment yielded a mean SUS score of M = 78.89 ± 14.11 for digital training (compared to the analogue training, M = 40.30 ± 11.19, p < 0.001), while students rated the UEQ for the digital version higher in the dimensions of pragmatic, hedonic quality and overall quality (all p < 0.001). Among 27 surveyed educators, analogue correction was rated time-intensive, with preference for digitalisation.
conclusionsThe Orthotrainer web application delivered diagnostic performance equivalent to that of conventional analogue training, proving particularly effective in radiographic analysis. Higher usability and user experience ratings support its integration into routine teaching. These findings suggest that structured digital tools can support the development of diagnostic reasoning and serve as a valuable addition to traditional orthodontic education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.