W C Scarfe1, B J Potter, A G Farman. 1. Department of Diagnosis and General Dentistry, University of Louisville Dental School, Kentucky, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of a course of instruction in intraoral digital radiology on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of dental students. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to dental students at two institutions with (UL) and without (MCG) formal instruction in digital dental radiology, investigating their understanding of the principles of digital radiography, their attitudes to its use in the near future, and on the timing and suitability of the topic in the undergraduate dental curriculum. Differences in the responses between preclinical and clinical students at the two institutions were statistically assessed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 66% (277) with rates of 52% (103) at MCG and 76% (174) at UL. UL students knew significantly more about digital radiography but they also had some significant misconceptions and differed in their perception of its future role. Most students (93%) believed that digital radiography should be included in the curriculum or offered as an elective course. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students want digital radiology to be introduced into the dental radiology curriculum, regardless of whether it is examined or not. The teaching methods and content of such a course need careful consideration.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of a course of instruction in intraoral digital radiology on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of dental students. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to dental students at two institutions with (UL) and without (MCG) formal instruction in digital dental radiology, investigating their understanding of the principles of digital radiography, their attitudes to its use in the near future, and on the timing and suitability of the topic in the undergraduate dental curriculum. Differences in the responses between preclinical and clinical students at the two institutions were statistically assessed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 66% (277) with rates of 52% (103) at MCG and 76% (174) at UL. UL students knew significantly more about digital radiography but they also had some significant misconceptions and differed in their perception of its future role. Most students (93%) believed that digital radiography should be included in the curriculum or offered as an elective course. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students want digital radiology to be introduced into the dental radiology curriculum, regardless of whether it is examined or not. The teaching methods and content of such a course need careful consideration.