Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 149–151 | Cite as

Handpiece and bur skills evaluation during an introductory clinical skills programme in a graduate-entry dental school: a pilot study

  • J. I. FoleyEmail author
  • J. Drummie
Scientific Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

AIM: To assess the effect of an introductory Clinical Skills Program on the development of two tasks aimed at teaching a Class II cavity preparation technique. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, observational study. METHODS: Twenty three first year students (F: 19; M: 4) were asked to complete two cavities on a Frasaco® tooth 46 using a FG 565 pear-shaped diamond bur. Task One: A groove was cut from the central fissure area to within 1 mm of the marginal ridge which was 5mm in length, 2mm in width and 2mm in depth. Task Two: As for Task One and in addition, a slot was cut vertically downward at the marginal ridge to create a box 2mm in length, 2mm in width and 3mm in depth. Both tasks were undertaken at the start of an introductory Clinical Skills course and two months later after further skills practice. Cavity dimensions were measured using a digital caliper with a depth gauge. STATISTICS: Data were analysed using a two-sample t-test (MINITAB® 15.1). RESULTS: Regarding Task One, a statistically-significant improvement in groove width was noted (p=0.001). Concerning Task Two, both the groove width and the box width improved and both were statistically significant p=0.023 and p=0.049, respectively). CONCLUSION: A Clinical Skills Program would appear to result in an improvement in cavity preparation, particularly in relation to cavity width.

Keywords

Dentistry clinical skills graduate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen WR. Dental education in the European Union. Br Dent J 2005; Suppl:33–34.Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan JA. Experience with virtual reality-based technology in teaching restorative dental procedures. J Dent Educ 2004; 68: 1258–1265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. de Andres AG, Sanchez E, Hidalgo JJ, Diaz MJ. Appraisal of psychomotor skills of dental students at University Complutense of Madrid. Eur J Dent Educ 2004; 8: 24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gal GB, Weiss EI, Gafni N, Ziv A. Preliminary assessment of faculty and student perception of a haptic virtual reality simulator for training dental manual dexterity. J Dent Educ 2011; 75: 496–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gansky SA, Pritchard H, Kahl E, et al. Reliability and validity of a manual dexterity test to predict preclinical grades. J Dent Educ 2004; 68: 985–994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. General Dental Council. The First Five Years. Third Edition (Intermic). London, 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Giuliani M, Lajolo C, Clemente L, et al. Is manual dexterity essential in the selection of dental students? Br Dent J 2007; 203: 149–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kusumoto N, Sohmura T, Yamada S, et al. Application of virtual reality force feedback haptic device for oral implant surgery. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 708–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lenters M, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Iatrogenic damage to the adjacent surfaces of primary molars, in three different ways of cavity preparation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7: 6–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Luck O, Reitemeier B, Scheuch K. Testing of fine motor skills in dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2000; 4: 10–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lussi A, Kronenberg O, Megert B. The effect of magnification on the iatrogenic damage to adjacent tooth surfaces during class II preparation. J Dent 2003; 31: 291–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Medeiros VA, Seddon RP. latrogenic damage to approximal surfaces in contact with Class II restorations. J Dent 2000; 28: 103–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plasschaert AJ, Manogue M, Lindh C, et al. Curriculum content, structure and ECTS for European dental schools. Part II: methods of learning and teaching, assessment procedures and performance criteria. Eur J Dent Educ 2007; 11: 125–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Polyzois I, Claffey N, McDonald A, Hussey D, Quinn F. Can evaluation of a dental procedure at the outset of learning predict later performance at the preclinical level? A pilot study. Eur J Dent Educ 2011; 15: 104–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rhienmora P, Haddawy P, Suebnukarn S, Dailey MN. Intelligent dental training simulator with objective skill assessment and feedback. Artif Intell Med 2011; 52: 115–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Suebnukarn S, Hataidechadusadee R, Suwannasri N, et al. Access cavity preparation training using haptic virtual reality and microcomputed tomography tooth models. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 983–989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Urbankova A. Impact of computerized dental simulation training on preclinical operative dentistry examination scores. J Dent Educ 2010; 74: 402–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wanzel KR, Hamstra SJ, Caminiti MF, et al. Visual-spatial ability correlates with efficiency of hand motion and successful surgical performance. Surgery 2003; 134: 750–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wierinck E, Puttemans V, Swinnen S, van Steenberghe D. Effect of augmented visual feedback from a virtual reality simulation system on manual dexterity training. Eur J Dent Educ 2005; 9: 10–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wierinck E, Puttemans V, van Steenberghe D. Effect of tutorial input in addition to augmented feedback on manual dexterity training and its retention. Eur J Dent Educ 2006; 10: 24–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wierinck ER, Puttemans V, Swinnen SP, van Steenberghe D. Expert performance on a virtual reality simulation system. J Dent Educ 2007; 71: 759–766.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept Paediatric DentistryThe University of Aberdeen Dental School and HospitalUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations