In this interventional study, 60 third-year students completing the pre-clinical course were included and randomly allocated into groups A and B, each consisting of 30 students. Group A was trained through the multi-media-based teaching methods, including PowerPoint, instructor demonstration, and procedural videos, and group B was trained by traditional education methods, which only included instructor demonstration. The required sample size was obtained based on the formula for comparing the proportion between the two groups:
N = (z1 + z2)2 (P1(1-P1) + P2(1-P2))/d2
In which, z
1 and z
2 were drown from normal standard distribution considering the type of error and the power equal 0.05 and 0.80, respectively. The proportion of undercut (P) was estimated at 0.591 from the previous studies (
36), and the minimum detectable difference with the test (d) was 0.4. Thus, the minimum sample size was 24 for each group. Considering the possibility of dropping samples from the study, the sample size was supposed to be 30 in each group.
Eligible participants were randomly allocated to the multimedia-based or the traditional education method groups using block randomization with block sizes of two. Randomization was not blinded to the individual participants because of the nature of the intervention. The research assistant who scored and imported data and the statistician who analyzed the results were blinded to group allocation. Participants were explicitly advised not to inform others about which group they were in and not to discuss the intervention. Participants were also advised not to give the intervention to anyone else.
According to the exclusion criteria in evaluating tooth preparation on the second premolars, one person was excluded from group A due to their absence in the demonstration session. A total of two individuals from group B and one from group A were excluded from the study for the same reason. The number of participants in each stage of the study is given in
Figure 1 based on the consort flowchart.
Number of participants in randomized control trial study
Group A was trained by Multimedia-based teaching methods, including PowerPoint, instructor demonstration, and watching videos, and group B was trained by traditional teaching methods that only included the instructor’s demonstration. Students in this group received a PowerPoint related to the session's topics before the training class, and they were encouraged to read it after receiving a guide for use. These slides included the description text, the instructor’s voice, and the pictures. The instructor presented the topics in the training session and then demonstrated how to prepare the teeth in the single crown mode. A procedural video of the instructor’s demonstration was given to each group member. The video included a step-by-step tutorial on preparing porcelain fused to metal (PFM) for second premolars and first molars teeth.
The training of group B was based only on the instructor’s theoretical teaching in the training session and the instructor’s demonstration.
After a 45-day course and students practicing and getting feedback from the supervisor, a practical exam was taken from both groups at the end of the course. The tooth preparation was performed on Typodont model teeth on the exam day, which students had previously practiced. The number of teeth on which the trial should be conducted was placed in envelopes randomly selected by the students. The students prepared the relevant teeth after determining the tooth. The students assigned each prepared tooth a code to blind the evaluator.
The desired tooth was first sprayed with a protective coating to prevent light reflection and then mounted. All prepared teeth were mounted on a dental generator and were reviewed by a Ceramill map400 optical scanner (Amann Girrbach AG, Koblach, Austria) and digitized using design software (Ceramill Mind/D-Flow; Amann Girrbach).
The expert mode of software was selected to determine the amount of undercut in the first stage to indicate the appropriate insertion path for each tooth by applying a color spectrum. Manual changes were made to choose a better path of insertion. As soon as the insertion path was fixed by clicking the "set current view as insertion axis" option, the undercut was examined from the occlusal view, and its existence or nonexistence was reported.
Students evaluated the reduction in occlusal clearance by considering 1.5 mm and 1 mm clearances for functional and non-functional cusps, respectively. Calculations were conducted using a software measurement tool, and 1.5 to 2 mm and 1 to 1.5 mm were considered sufficient for functional and non-functional cusps, respectively. Color spectra and subjective evaluation of two prosthetic faculties were used to evaluate the smoothness of the preparation.
Intra and inter-reliability for occlusal reduction, smoothness of the preparation, and undercut were calculated based on coefficient kappa. Intra reliability was 0.87, 0.90, and 0.03 for occlusal reduction, smoothness of the preparation, and undercut, respectively. In addition, the inter-reliability for these three variables was 0.82, 0.95, and 0.86, respectively. Significance levels were obtained for all kappa coefficients less than 0.001.
A chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used to analyze the data and compare the distributions of smoothness, undercut, and occlusal reduction between the two educational groups.
The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 18.0 (Ic., Chicago, IL, USA), and the significance level in this study was 0.05.