Dental Students' Perceptions of Preheated Resin Composite Use for Direct Restorations and Indirect Luting Procedures
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Philippe François1,2,3, Lionel Oulmayrou1, Helene Gouze2,4
1Department of Dental Materials, Faculty of Dental Surgery, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Introduction:
The aim of this publication is to evaluate undergraduate dental students' perceptions of integrating preheated restorative composite resin (PRCR) into routine care for direct restorations and as a luting material for bonded partial restorations.
Materials And Methods:
In a 6-month, single-center, prospective exploratory study, fifth- and sixth-year students were assigned non-randomly according to existing clinical rotations to PRCR (n = 12) or comparison (n = 41) cohorts. Perceptions were measured with 5-point Likert instruments at baseline and study end. An end-study survey was administered only to the PRCR cohort. Nonparametric tests compared groups.
Results:
Baseline imbalances favoured the comparison cohort on several items. After six months, most between-group differences were no longer statistically significant. However, stress during assembly of bonded partial restorations was lower in the PRCR cohort (2.67 ± 0.98 vs. 3.49 ± 0.93; p < 0.05), as was stress about setting time (2.25 ± 1.36 vs. 3.58 ± 1.20; p < 0.05). End-study responses from the PRCR cohort suggested high overall acceptability among the 12 exposed students. Students considered prior training essential and expressed a strong intention to adopt the technique despite its cost.
Conclusions:
Integrating PRCR into teaching clinics was feasible and acceptable among the 12 exposed students. However, the small and unequal cohorts, non-random allocation, and baseline imbalances preclude causal interpretation and do not establish equivalence or superiority. Outcomes were self-reported, and objective clinical benefits were not assessed. These single-center findings may not be generalizable and require confirmation in larger, balanced, multi-center studies incorporating objective outcomes.
