Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 7, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Lukas B Seifert1, Carlos Herrera-Vizcaino2, Philipp Herguth2
1Department of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. lukasbenedikt.seifert@kgu.de.
Background:
The feedback given to students plays an important role in their efficiency related to learning practical skills. In the present study, diverse feedback modalities have been investigated. Our hypothesis is that individualized and unsupervised video feedback can produce a similar learning experience as performing practical skills in an oral and maxillofacial surgery setting with conventional direct expert feedback (control group).
Methods:
This prospective, randomized, controlled, and blinded study compared direct expert feedback (DEF), individualized video feedback (IVF) and unsupervised video feedback (UVF). The participants were fourth-year dental students from University Goethe in Frankfurt. The students were assigned to one of the three feedback methods (n = 20 per group) using simple randomization. All participants watched an instruction video for an interdental ('Ernst') ligature and periphery venous catheterization. Next, the students were video recorded performing the tasks by themselves (pre-test). Following this, every student received feedback using one of the above-mentioned feedback modalities. The participants then performed the same task again while being video recorded (post-test) to measure the acquired competence. Six weeks later, the students participated in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate their long-term knowledge retention. All examiners were blinded regarding the students' instructional approach and their affiliation in terms of the learning group.
Results:
For the interdental ligature, we found significant improvements in performance in each feedback modality group between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.001). UVF had the strongest effect on performance time. The comparison between each group in the post-test showed no significant differences between the three groups.
Conclusion:
This study showed that IVF and UVF can be considered an alternative or adjunct to conventional methods (i.e. DEF) when learning procedural skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, DEF showed to be the most effective method of feedback and therefore preferable in teaching.
