Table 4.
Types of interventions, study designs and learning outcome measures reported in included studies
| Studies | Intervention design | Study design | Outcome measures | |
| *=E-learning #=Blended learning |
Quantitative outcomes (p value or mean) | Qualitative outcomes (p value or mean) | ||
| Al-Rawi, 2007 | Online interactive assessment modules on “basics” of CBCT* | Split cohorts | Assessment outcomes—no significant difference (p = 0.14) | “Attitude”—“positive” |
| Busanello, 2015 | 3 e-learning sessions of 110 digitally altered images for recognition and diagnosis of changes* | Split cohorts | Significant writing (p < 0.004) and practice (p < 0.003) test results | Preference—(mean = 90.5%) |
| Cruz, 2014 | “e-course”: digital periapical images with texts and questions to evaluate the maxillofacial anatomy* | Two cohorts | Assessment outcomes —no significant difference (p > 0.05) | “Satisfaction”—(mean = 8.47) |
| Howerton, 2002 | 27 online interactive video clips for virtual exposing, developing and mounting dental radiographs on a mannikin* | Split cohorts | Performance—– no difference in quality of radiograph (p = 0.30) | “Preference”—(p < 0.0001) |
| Howerton, 2004 | 27 online interactive video clips blended with 3 Power point lectures for exposing dental radiographs# | Split cohorts | Performance—no significant difference in posttest (p = 0.98) | “Preference”—(p < 0.0001) |
| Kavadella, 2012 | e-class course blended with weekly lectures for knowledge of radiological lesions# | Split cohorts | Significant post test results for knowledge (p < 0.005) | “Attitude”—“positive” (mean = 91%) |
| Meckfessel, 2011 | Online “Medical schoolbook” blended with 20 lectures on the positioning of X-ray apparatus and to obtain radiographs virtually” and knowledge of “physical basics”# | Two cohorts | Significant examination results for Knowledge grade (p < 0.001) | “Attitude”—“positive” (mean = 70%) |
| Mileman, 2003 | Computer-assisted learning for the detection of proximal caries on digitized bitewings* | Split cohorts | Significant higher sensitivity for caries detection (p = 0.005) | |
| Nilsson, 2007 | 2 self-directed sessions using
software for a virtual “tube shift technique”.
Cohort 1. Tutor led session with “10 cases of computerized materials” on the impact of tube positioning. Cohort 2* |
Two cohorts | Cohort 1 had significantly better pre and post “proficiency and radiography test” for interpreting spatial information (p < 0.01) | |
| Nkenke, 2012 | 8 online e-learning modules blended with 8 lectures for “radiological science course” # | Split cohorts | No significant examination results for Knowledge grade (p = 0.449) | “Attitude”—“positive” (p = 0.020) |
| Nkenke, 2012 | 8 lectures followed by e-mail with MCQs and feedback on “radiological science course” # | Split cohorts | “spent more time with learning content” (p < 0.0005) | “Attitude”—“positive” (p = 0.022) |
| Silveira, 2008 | Lecture first, blended with 30 min online virtual procedures for bisecting angle technique then tested tube positioning on simulated patient and then radiograph exposure on a manikin# | Split cohorts | Significant “simulation” test grade (p < 0.01) | “more confident and better prepared” for real patient |
| Silveira, 2009 | Interactive e-learning using virtual objects, animations and quizzes to identify 28 cephalometric landmarks* | Split cohorts | Significant knowledge grade of correct landmark identification (p < 0.05) by delayed post-test | Preference—(mean = 82.5%) |
| Tan, 2009 | Lectures first, blended with 8 e-learning modules for the “radiological science course” # | Split cohorts | Significant knowledge assessment scores in examination (p < 0.01) | Perception—(p < 0.05) |
| Tsao, 2016 | Lectures first, blended with 5 e-learning modules for the diagnosis of interproximal caries# | Split cohorts | No significant difference assessment scores in diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.45) | Perception—(mean = 62.5%) |
| Vuchkova, 2011 | Use of conventional textbook on oral pathosis, blended with a seminar with 3D software on depth relationships of pathosis on panoramic radiographs # | Only one cohort | Use of 3D software did not improve outcome (p > 0.05) | “Preference”—(mean = 88%) |
| Vuchkova, 2012 | First cohort: Use of online textbook
followed by online “digital tool” (first cohort)
and vice versa (second cohort). Phase 2: use of conventional textbook followed by “digital tool” for the knowledge of radiographic anatomy# |
Two cohorts in Phase 1 one cohort in Phase 2 | No significant difference in test scores for knowledge (p > 0.05) | “Preference”—(mean = 94%) |
Where, Two cohort study design means students compared from different semesters or years. Split cohorts study design means students from same semester or year divided into two groups.