DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Trip Database, Web of Science and Open Grey databases were conducted from their inception until November 2018 with no language restriction. Hand searching of most likely relevant journals was performed. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies that compared pre-clinical endodontic training using extracted teeth and artificial teeth were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of included studies was appraised by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. The findings were tabulated and summarized according to their outcomes with distinct narrative syntheses.

RESULTS: Five studies were included. The component studies included 359 operators in total, mainly consisting of undergraduate students (97%, n = 349) and 10 endodontists (3%). Forty-seven per cent (n = 170) operated on artificial teeth only, whilst 19% (n = 67) worked primarily on extracted teeth, with the final treatment outcome being evaluated by independent observers using objective criteria. Operators in two studies (34%, n = 122) used both artificial teeth and ET and compared their experiences in surveys. Regarding technical outcomes, no significant differences between training with artificial teeth and extracted teeth were found, but the performance tended to be better in artificial teeth than extracted teeth. Operators trained solely on artificial teeth appeared to be adequately educated for subsequent root canal treatment (RCT) in the clinical setting.

LIMITATIONS: Due to the scarcity of research on the topic overall, and the methodological variation between the studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis (meta-analysis).