AI Virtual Patient Training for Dental Student History Taking

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Large Language Model; Artificial Intelligence (AI); Virtual Patient; Dental Education; History Taking
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training; Behavioral: Conventional Role-Play Training

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 Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 56
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Vietnam
  • Hue City
    • Huế, Hue City, Vietnam, 530000
      • Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Child; Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• 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.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Withdrawal from the study.
• Failure to complete the baseline assessment, scheduled training sessions, or postintervention assessment.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training; 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.	Behavioral: Gemini-Based AI Virtual-Patient Training; 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.
Active Comparator: Conventional Role-Play Group; 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.	Behavioral: Conventional Role-Play Training; 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.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
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.	Baseline and immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
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.	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.	Immediately after completion of the 2-week training intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Van Nhat Thang Le, DDS PhD, Faculty of Odonto-Stomatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): May 30, 2026
• Primary Completion (Actual): June 15, 2026
• Study Completion (Actual): June 18, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: June 30, 2026
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 30, 2026
• First Posted (Actual): July 7, 2026

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): July 7, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 30, 2026
• Last Verified: June 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: H2026/548

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