When comparing the three student groups on the “knowledge of border molding” subscales, the students using silicone models and those using mannequins provided significantly better evaluations than those using plaster models (p < 0.001, both), and on the “contents of practical training” subscales, the students using silicone models and those using mannequins provided significantly better evaluations than those using plaster models (p = 0.046, p < 0.001, respectively). However, no significant differences were observed between those using silicone models and those using mannequins. In addition, no significant differences were found among the three groups on the “personal learning attitude” subscale (Table 3).Table 3Results of multiple comparisons with each factor analyzed for the three model typesPlaster modelSilicone modelMannequinKnowledge of border molding3.18 ± 1.14b 3.84 ± 0.98a 3.83 ± 0.83a Contents of practical training4.19 ± 0.80b 4.38 ± 0.74a 4.50 ± 0.71a Personal learning attitude3.26 ± 1.02a 3.28 ± 1.13a 3.53 ± 0.95a Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among three model types considering each line