Technical Quality and Students' Perception of Endodontic Preclinical Training Using Natural or LikeReal Artificial Teeth.

Introduction: This study evaluated and compared the technical quality of treatments performed during the preclinical training using artificial and natural teeth and the students' perceptions regarding their learning process with the 2 groups.

Materials and methods: The study assessed the teeth used for preclinical training by 2nd-year students at São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry. The natural teeth group (NTG) included the teeth used by the class of 2021, and the artificial teeth group (ATG) assessed the artificial teeth (LikeReal, Porto Alegre, Brazil) used by the class of 2022. The teeth were visually and radiographically observed, and the errors were divided according to the location in the crown or in the root. Errors in the crown included perforation, damage to the marginal ridge, fracture, and remnants of gutta-percha. Errors in the roots included overfilling, obturation at the apex, obturation > 2 mm short of the apex, voids, instrument separation, ledge, and root fracture. The students' perceptions were assessed by a questionnaire with 10 questions involving ethical, biohazard, technical challenges, and fairness of the evaluation. The chi-squared test was used for differences at p < 0.05.

Results: 408 teeth were assessed, 204 in each group. In the NTG, remaining gutta-percha, 36 (17.64%); voids, 53 (25.98%); and root filling at the apex, 48 (23.52%), were the most common errors. In the ATG, remaining gutta-percha, 45 (22.05%); voids; and filling > 2 mm short, 65 (31.86%) were the most common errors. In the ATG, the occurrence of damage to the marginal ridge and filling > 2 mm short of the apex was less frequent than in the NTG; ledges and root fractures were more frequent in the ATG (p < 0.05). Regarding students' perception, NTG was superior in access and instrumentation; both groups thought that training with natural teeth was better. The students in the ATG were more concerned with the ethical and biohazard aspects.

Conclusions: The technical quality of the treatments was similar in both groups; however, artificial teeth were more prone to fracture, indicating that improvements are necessary for the material. The students' perception was that natural teeth are more appropriate for their training.