Is dissection or prosection equal in dental anatomy education?

This study aimed to investigate the learning outcomes and opinions about dissection and prosection methods among second-year dental students. Twenty-one dental students participated in the study. Two topographic subjects were selected from the head and neck region. Theoretical and practical pre-tests for the first subject were presented. After the theoretical lecture, the students were randomly divided into dissection and prosection groups and a practical lesson was presented. A post-test was then applied. On another day, the same steps were repeated for the second topographic topic, reversing the practice groups. A feedback questionnaire was supplied to the students at the end of the study. The questions in the first part of the feedback survey were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, and the open-ended questions in the second part were scored by creating a six-step latent thematic analysis - main themes and sub-themes. Post-test scores were higher in both subjects (p < 0.001). While there was no difference between the pre- and post-test student scores on practical questions in the first subject, the post-test practical scores were higher in the second subject (p = 0.044). There was no significant difference between the dissection and prosection groups for either subject (p > 0.05). Most of the students (n = 18, 85.71%) stated that both methods were necessary for anatomy education. Some of them (n = 12, 57.41%) found prosection more useful and some (n = 5, 23.81%) found dissection more useful. In response to the answers to the open-ended questions, four main themes were created and the results related to these main themes were collected in sub-themes. This study shows that the preferred method of cadaveric education, whether dissection or prosection, has a positive effect on both students' emotions and learning outcomes. Institutions can use both methods in a balanced way when designing anatomy curricula in dental schools.