AI-Generated Versus Human Feedback in Preclinical Restorative Dentistry (AIF-HF)

June 26, 2026 updated by: Seda Nur Karakaş

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.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

140

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Turkey (Türkiye)
      • Adana, Turkey (Türkiye)
        • Cukurova University Faculty of Dentistry

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

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.

Exclusion Criteria:

Students who declined to participate. Students who did not complete the practical training session. Students with incomplete performance assessment or questionnaire data.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: AI-Generated Feedback
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.
Behavioral: Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback
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.
Active Comparator: Human Instructor Feedback
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.
Behavioral: Human Instructor Feedback
Participants received formative feedback from a faculty instructor during preclinical restorative dentistry training. Feedback was provided according to predefined evaluation criteria.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
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.
At completion of the preclinical training session (approximately 2 weeks after study initiation)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in State Anxiety
Time Frame: Baseline (before the practical session) and immediately after completion of the practical session (approximately 2 hours).
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.
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).
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.
Immediately after completion of the practical training session (approximately 2 hours after baseline).

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Seda Nur Karakaş

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

March 13, 2026

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 13, 2026

Study Completion (Actual)

March 31, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 23, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 26, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

July 2, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 2, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 26, 2026

Last Verified

June 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • REC163-42-2026

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Preclinical Dental Education

Clinical Trials on Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Egypt

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe