A M Marti1, B T Harris2, M J Metz3, D Morton4, W C Scarfe5, C J Metz6, W-S Lin2. 1. Department of Oral Biology, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA. 2. Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Oral Health and Rehabilitation, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA. 3. Department of General Dentistry and Oral Medicine, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Surgical/Hospital Dentistry, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA. 6. Department of Physiology & Biophysics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With increasing use of digital scanning with restorative procedures in the dental office, it becomes necessary that educational institutions adopt instructional methodology for introducing this technology together with conventional impression techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare the time differences between instructing dental students on digital scanning (DS) (LAVA C.O.S. digital impression system) and a conventional impression technique (CI) (polyvinyl siloxane), and to compare students' attitudes and beliefs towards both techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Volunteer sophomore dental students (n = 25) with no prior experience in clinical impressions were recruited and IRB consent obtained. Participants responded to a pre-and post-exposure questionnaire. Participants were instructed on the use of both DS and CI for a single tooth full coverage crown restoration using a consecutive sequence of video lecture, investigator-led demonstration and independent impression exercise. The time necessary for each step (minutes) was recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using dependent t-tests (time measurements) and 2-sample Mann-Whitney (questionnaire responses). RESULTS: The time spent teaching students was greater for DS than CI for video lecture (15.95 and 10.07 min, P = 0.0000), demonstration time (9.06 and 4.70 min, P = 0.0000) and impression time (18.17 and 8.59 min, P = 0.0000). Prior to the instruction and practice, students considered themselves more familiar with CI (3.96) than DS (1.96) (P = 0.0000). After the instruction and practice, participants reported CI technique proved significantly easier than expected (pre-instruction: 3.52 and post-instruction: 4.08, P = 0.002). However, overall participants' perception of ease of use for DS was not influenced by this instruction and practice experience (pre-instruction: 3.84 and post-instruction: 3.56, P = 0.106). Despite the results, 96% of participants expressed an expectation that DS will become their predominant impression technique during their careers. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students with no clinical experience have high expectations for digital scanning, and despite their initial difficulty, expect it to become their primary impression technique during their professional futures. The instructional time necessary for introducing DS into the curriculum is significantly greater than CI in both classroom (lecture) and clinical simulation settings (investigator-led demonstration).
INTRODUCTION: With increasing use of digital scanning with restorative procedures in the dental office, it becomes necessary that educational institutions adopt instructional methodology for introducing this technology together with conventional impression techniques. OBJECTIVE: To compare the time differences between instructing dental students on digital scanning (DS) (LAVA C.O.S. digital impression system) and a conventional impression technique (CI) (polyvinyl siloxane), and to compare students' attitudes and beliefs towards both techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Volunteer sophomore dental students (n = 25) with no prior experience in clinical impressions were recruited and IRB consent obtained. Participants responded to a pre-and post-exposure questionnaire. Participants were instructed on the use of both DS and CI for a single tooth full coverage crown restoration using a consecutive sequence of video lecture, investigator-led demonstration and independent impression exercise. The time necessary for each step (minutes) was recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using dependent t-tests (time measurements) and 2-sample Mann-Whitney (questionnaire responses). RESULTS: The time spent teaching students was greater for DS than CI for video lecture (15.95 and 10.07 min, P = 0.0000), demonstration time (9.06 and 4.70 min, P = 0.0000) and impression time (18.17 and 8.59 min, P = 0.0000). Prior to the instruction and practice, students considered themselves more familiar with CI (3.96) than DS (1.96) (P = 0.0000). After the instruction and practice, participants reported CI technique proved significantly easier than expected (pre-instruction: 3.52 and post-instruction: 4.08, P = 0.002). However, overall participants' perception of ease of use for DS was not influenced by this instruction and practice experience (pre-instruction: 3.84 and post-instruction: 3.56, P = 0.106). Despite the results, 96% of participants expressed an expectation that DS will become their predominant impression technique during their careers. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students with no clinical experience have high expectations for digital scanning, and despite their initial difficulty, expect it to become their primary impression technique during their professional futures. The instructional time necessary for introducing DS into the curriculum is significantly greater than CI in both classroom (lecture) and clinical simulation settings (investigator-led demonstration).
Authors: Simone Marques; Paulo Ribeiro; Carlos Falcão; Bernardo Ferreira Lemos; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Isidora Christopoulou; Eleftherios G Kaklamanos; Miltiadis A Makrygiannakis; Ilias Bitsanis; Paula Perlea; Apostolos I Tsolakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390