PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel technique of tooth preparation in fixed prosthodontics suitable for dental students and neophyte dentists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four dental students of the sixth-year class were recruited to verify the predicibility of this technique. Each student prepared two mandibular second premolars on a typodont for a dental crown with a 90° shoulder finishing line. One tooth was prepared using standard procedures taught in the prosthodontic dental course; the other tooth was prepared with the new technique. Three Professors of Prosthodontics of the same University evaluated the result on the basis of 10 criteria. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the two techniques was found in 8 out of 10 criteria. The new technique showed higher values (p<0.05) in 7 criteria, while the conventional technique had better results in just 1 criterion. Moreover, the total sum of values was higher for the new technique (total 41.2±3.98, p<0.05) compared to the conventional technique (total 38.12±5.18, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the results were less dependent on manual abilities and personal experience with the novel technique. It could helps dental students and neophyte dentists in their learning curve.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel technique of tooth preparation in fixed prosthodontics suitable for dental students and neophyte dentists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four dental students of the sixth-year class were recruited to verify the predicibility of this technique. Each student prepared two mandibular second premolars on a typodont for a dental crown with a 90° shoulder finishing line. One tooth was prepared using standard procedures taught in the prosthodontic dental course; the other tooth was prepared with the new technique. Three Professors of Prosthodontics of the same University evaluated the result on the basis of 10 criteria. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the two techniques was found in 8 out of 10 criteria. The new technique showed higher values (p<0.05) in 7 criteria, while the conventional technique had better results in just 1 criterion. Moreover, the total sum of values was higher for the new technique (total 41.2±3.98, p<0.05) compared to the conventional technique (total 38.12±5.18, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the results were less dependent on manual abilities and personal experience with the novel technique. It could helps dental students and neophyte dentists in their learning curve.