Demonstration of the access cavity preparation procedures to dental students is
challenging due to the limited operating field and detailed nature of the procedures. It is especially
difficult to visualize how instruments are functioning inside the pulp space. The aim of this study
was to develop and compare two different views of video demonstration in teaching access cavity
preparation. (Copied from article).
A validated screening tool for patient triage based on the pain symptoms, could potentially optimize the resources and expertise available in dental pain management. The aim of this study was to translate and validate the Modified Dental Pain Questionnaire (M-DePaQ) for use in categorizing patients with pain into three groups of common dental conditions. Forward Malay and Chinese translation was performed, followed by backward English translation. The translation was reviewed by an expert panel and pre-tested on patients who are native speakers.Consecutive patients aged 18 years and older experiencing pain and attending the primary dental care clinic completed the questionnaires. Four calibrated dentists made clinical diagnoses independent of the questionnaire responses. For data analysis, the cases were split randomly into Random Sample 1 (RS1) and Random Sample 2 (RS2). Discriminant analysis was performed on RS1 to develop a model for classifying dental pain cases into three groups. The model was applied to cases in RS2, and a cross-validated accuracy rate was obtained. Criterion validity was assessed using measures such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and kappa. Of the 234 questionnaires distributed, 216 (92.3%) were returned. Classification rates were recorded at 73.8% for RS1, 75.0% for RS2, and 71.1% for all cases. The sensitivity values were 0.72, 0.39, and 0.43 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding specificity values were 0.42, 0.87, and 0.94. The discriminant validity of the adapted questionnaire was satisfactory, but the criterion validity could not be established because of biases incorporated in the study.
The study aimed to compare the scope and pattern of practice between general dental practitioners (GDPs), restorative dentistry specialists and endodontists. Self-administered postal questionnaires were distributed to 22 restorative dentistry specialists, 16 endodontists and a random sample of 566 GDPs. The pre-tested questionnaire inquired about demographic data, endodontic practices and referrals. Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni adjustment was performed for pairwise comparisons. The overall response rate was 73.8%. The restorative dentistry specialists and the endodontists performed a wider array of endodontic procedures than the GDPs and were more consistent in the use of specific armamentarium (p
This study aims to determine the prevalence of hand-held ProTaper® files system among UKM final year dental undergraduates and to assess their perception in performing endodontic treatments.
Methods: 85 final year dental students from 2006/2007 academic session participated in the questionnaire survey. All students underwent didactic endodontic teaching of conventional stainless steel files throughout a 2-year course and a 2-day ProTaper® hand files seminar on canal preparation. Each student had a total of 6 months clinical period before the survey was distributed to the subjects and returned for data analysis.
Results: A 100% response rate was received. About 58.8% (n=50) used hand ProTaper routinely while 41.2% claimed themselves as non-users. Amongst the users, 52.5% were moderate users and about 33.6% were frequent users. Tooth type and size of canals were the selected criteria for file use. Majority of users used ProTaper® hand for posterior teeth and regarded it as user friendly. Although almost all users expressed concern of instrument fracture during use, very few did break. Procedural errors were not experienced by 51.3% users.
Conclusion: About 2/3rd majority of UKM undergraduate dental students use ProTaper® hand-held system as an alternative for canal preparation. Procedural errors were perceived to occur much less when using the NiTi files. The system can be initiated to novice users and can be taught as part of endodontic curricula.
Participation in contact sports has been shown to carry a considerable risk of sustaining dental injuries. It is important for athletes to use available preventive gear to protect themselves from these injuries. Aim of the study: To assess the knowledge, habit and preferences of using mouthguards among university athletes. Materials and Method: Self-administered questionnaires, consisting of Part A - Age, gender, type of sporting activities, total hours dedicated to sports training, level of sports representation; Part B - Awareness of risk of dental injuries, knowledge on mouthguards such as definition of a mouthguard, role of mouthguard, use of mouthguards and reasons for not wearing mouthguards; and Part C — Experience of sustaining dental injuries during sports activities, were distributed. Athletes who were university students over 18 years and under 30 years of age and athletes who claimed to know about mouthguards were included in the study. Results: Data of a total of 225 respondents were analysed, consisting of 68% (n=154) male and 32% female (n=71) with the mean age of 21 years old. Only 46% (n=104) knew exactly about mouthguards and its role in the prevention of dental injuries during sports. Thirty seven percent of them (n=84) have used mouthguards and they were mostly in the martial arts group. The mouthguards were usually provided by the management team (62%). Forty percent of the respondents (n=91) claimed to have sustained dental injuries while playing sports and the injuries occurred more frequently in hockey (65.3%), basketball (60%) and soccer (45.2%). Conclusions: The incidence of dental trauma in contact sports shows that the awareness and use of mouthguards must be intensified. Awareness campaigns focusing on dental trauma should be organized to improve the knowledge of athletes.