METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 72 s-year dental students, who attended preclinical fixed prosthodontic training. Participants were randomly segregated into conventional teaching (n = 36) and blended learning (n = 36). All participants were evaluated for learning preferences using Visual-Aural-Read/Write-Kinesthetic (VARK) questionnaire and performed a project as their baseline skill assessment. They performed another two preclinical projects (easy and difficult level) after the allocated teaching approach. Learning preferences were analysed using Fisher's exact test and performance in preclinical projects were analysed with an independent t test (significant at p .05) between groups. No significant differences found between both teaching approaches for easy (p = .319) and difficult projects (p = .339). In the blended learning group, no significant difference was found in both difficulty level of projects (p = .064).
CONCLUSION: The participants performed equally on both teaching approaches. However, blended learning for preclinical fixed prosthodontics is anticipated as the new norm of learning, especially in the current pandemic with reduced face-to-face time.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using validated modified-communication tools; Patient Communication Assessment Instruments (PCAI), Student Communication Assessment Instruments (SCAI) and Clinical Communication Assessment Instruments (CCAI) which included four communication domains. One hundred and seventy-six undergraduate clinical year students were recruited in this study whereby each of them was assessed by a clinical instructor and a randomly selected patient in two settings: Dental Health Education (DHE) and Comprehensive Care (CC) clinic.
RESULTS: Comparing the three perspectives, PCAI yielded the highest scores across all domains, followed by SCAI and CCAI (p
METHODS: Fifty-four dental students enrolled in 2018 were recruited as participants and assigned to two groups. Both groups were given the same lecture and asked to watch the same video in either the enhanced or non-enhanced version. The enhanced video was modified with the contemporaneous subtitle of the presenters' dialogue, text bullet points and summary text pages. The knowledge acquisition from the two types of video was subjected to pre- and post-tests one month after the students watched the video. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the students' perceptions of the learning experience and a performance test on practical skills was performed after six weeks. All the students responded to the test (100%).
RESULTS: The enhanced video demonstration improved the students' short-term knowledge acquisition after they watched the video, with an average score of 1.59 points higher in the enhanced group than in the non-enhanced group (p
METHODOLOGY: An audio-recorded, semi-structured qualitative phone interview was conducted with the heads of 42 nursing schools across Australia (n = 35) and Malaysia (n = 7) during the 2015 academic year. Qualitative data were analysed via thematic analysis. Quantitative data, wherever appropriate, were measured for frequencies.
RESULTS: The response rate was 34.2% (n = 12) and 71.4% (n = 5) for the Australian and Malaysian subjects, respectively. Findings revealed that although all the nursing schools measured provided didactic and clinical training in oral health, curriculum content, expected learning outcomes, amount of clinical exposure and assessment approach lacked consistency. Most nursing educators across both countries perceived an overloaded curriculum as a barrier to providing oral health education. Whilst educators demonstrated their support for training in this area of care, they expressed the need for an established national guideline that highlights the educational requirement for future nurses in oral health maintenance and their scope of practice.
CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable information for further developing oral health education for nurses, to improve their competency and ultimately the health of the communities that they will serve.
METHODOLOGY: A paper-based survey was conducted, classroom-style, on all dental students (Year 1 to Year 5, n = 336, response rate = 84.5%) using a validated questionnaire, developed from previous literature. For each BG technique, students used a visual analogue scale to mark their acceptability score; this figure was later categorised into different acceptance levels. Students' mean acceptability scores and acceptance of each BG technique were consecutively analysed via independent t test and chi-square test (significance level, P 0.01). Percentages of those who accepted communicative techniques involving parents demonstrated significant differences across subjects of different academic years, between pre-clinical and clinical groups of respondents and amongst clinical students. Other techniques with such significant differences, along with low acceptance, included modelling, voice control and disallowing the child to speak.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide useful information for curricular enhancement aimed at equipping dental students with the ability to apply appropriate and effective BG techniques during patient care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An audit checklist with 13 criteria for good documentation was adapted from guidelines proposed by the American Association of Orthodontists and British Orthodontic Society. Orthodontic chart documentation in 103 removable appliance therapy patients under 4th and 5th year dental undergraduates' care was retrieved from the electronic record of the University dental clinic and audited. The audit exercise explored in detail the thirteen criteria for good documentation and eight assessment attributes of the first criterion, namely, basic orthodontic examination. The level of compliance was measured as the percentage records meeting the criteria. The data were statistically analysed using SPSS 26.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS: There was no complete compliance for any of the criteria. Thirty-five (33.9%) patient charts reported basic orthodontic examination documentation adequately. Compliance was the highest for documentation of treatment modality (77.6%), appliance delivery encounters (77.6%), and appliance adjustment appointments (83.5%). About 51.4% of the 68 patient charts (treatment of 35 patients of the total 103 were in the progress stage) stated adequately the outcome of treatment. Only 22% of the 68 patient charts had the details for retention protocol. There was statistically significant difference in chart documentation between male and female students for basic orthodontic assessment and appliance delivery and patient instructions attributes.
CONCLUSION: The clinical audit demonstrated poor compliance with the criteria for orthodontic chart documentation. The audit should be repeated after the provision of learning opportunities and self-critical analysis.
METHODS: A draft set of EPA statements was developed based on the consensus of an expert panel. These were then mapped to the nationally determined minimum experience thresholds (clinical and procedural experiences/competencies) and aligned to task-based instructional strategy. The EPAs were validated to improve the relevance by using a criterion-based rubric.
RESULTS: An end-to-end process workflow led to the development of an EPA-based educational framework to bridge the gaps in the curriculum. The process identified a total of 41 EPAs and out of which, 10 EPAs were notated as core EPAs and will be subjected to structured workplace-based assessment complying to the national standards. The validation exercise rated core EPAs with an overall score matching close to the cut-off of 4.07 (Equal rubric).
CONCLUSION: The end-to-end process workflow provided the opportunity to elaborate a structured process for the development of EPAs for undergraduate dental education. As validation is a continuous process, feedback from implementation will inform the next steps.
METHODS: An online questionnaire and a cover letter were emailed to the deans of 13 Malaysian dental schools. The questionnaire covers various aspects of endodontic clinical training including teaching methods, endodontic clinical procedures, minimum requirements, clinical sessions and teaching staff.
RESULTS: The response rate was 69%. Similarities in teaching methods were observed in all responding schools. All schools taught contemporary root canal treatment procedures, including the utilisation of radiograph and electronic apex locator for working length determination, the crown-down approach for canal preparation and the cold lateral compaction for obturation. Sodium hypochlorite solution and non-setting calcium hydroxide medicament were used in most dental schools. Variations were observed in terms of the number of clinical requirements, supervisor: student ratio, and availability of endodontic specialists. The use of engine-driven instruments was observed mainly in government-funded dental schools.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dental schools in Malaysia are adopting the European Society Endodontology recommendation for undergraduate endodontic training, particularly in relation to the surveyed aspects. Most of the government-funded dental schools have progressed towards engaging contemporary endodontics with their increasing application of engine-driven Ni-Ti instruments and 3D imaging techniques. Appointments of full-time endodontic specialists would further enhance the quality of endodontic teaching and permit the utilisation of contemporary endodontic materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All Australian institutions offering DH/DT/OHT programmes (n = 14) were invited to participate in a self-administered questionnaire survey, conducted online, involving students across all academic years. Twelve institutions agreed to participate, but only five institutions were included in the final analysis, with a student response rate of 31.1%. Answers to open-ended questions were coded and grouped for measurement of frequencies. Quantitative data were analysed via chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests (significance taken as P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was conducted in Nov 2021 of all the dental schools in ten English-language speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) to identify departments/divisions in the disciplines of periodontology, cariology, and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry. The results were then compared against the findings of a similar investigation that was conducted from July to October 2008.
RESULTS: Of the 126 dental schools identified in 2021, information was available for 93 dental schools. Of these 93 schools, only 10 listed departments/divisions/disciplines of cariology, whereas 83 and 86 schools had listed periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. Despite a doubling of the number of dental schools with a department/division/discipline of cariology from 2008 to 2021, the absolute gap in the number of departments/divisions/disciplines in the other two disciplines compared to cariology had widened during the thirteen years. In 2008, there were 70 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology compared to cariology departments/divisions/disciplines. In 2021, there were 73 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology. Additional information on research output was available for 90 dental schools in 2021, where 30 schools self-identified as undertaking cariology research, whereas 68 and 47 schools undertook research in periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental education does not give equal emphasis to periodontology and cariology, and the discipline of cariology is grossly neglected.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified pre-existing measures and models for the assessment of attitudes in healthcare students. Adaptation of three pre-existing scales was undertaken, and a new scale was developed based upon the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) using an elicitation survey. These scales underwent a process of content validation. The three adapted scales and the TPB scale were piloted by 130 students at 5 different professional stages, from 4 different countries.
RESULTS: The scales were adjusted to ensure good internal reliability, variance, distribution, and face and content validity. In addition, the different scales showed good divergent validity.
DISCUSSION: These results are positive, and the scales now need to be validated in the field.
CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that these tools will be useful to educators in SCD to evaluate the impact of teaching and clinical exposure on their students.
METHODS: Clinical audit learning was introduced in Year 3 of a 5-year curriculum for dental undergraduates. During classroom activities, students were briefed on clinical audit, selected their audit topics in groups of 5 or 6 students, and prepared and presented their audit protocols. One chosen topic was RCT, in which 3 different cohorts of Year 3 students conducted retrospective audits of patients' records in 2012, 2014 and 2015 for their compliance with recommended record keeping criteria and their performance in RCT. Students were trained by and calibrated against an endodontist (κ ≥ 0.8). After each audit, the findings were reported in class, and recommendations were made for improvement in performance of RCT and record keeping. Students' compliance with published guidelines was presented and their RCT performances in each year were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Overall compliance with of record keeping guidelines was 44.1% in 2012, 79.6% in 2014 and 94.6% in 2015 (P = .001). In the 2012 audit, acceptable extension, condensation and the absence of mishap were observed in 72.4, 75.7% and 91.5%; in the 2014 audit, 95.1%, 64.8% and 51.4%; and in 2015 audit, 96.4%, 82.1% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. In 2015, 76.8% of root canal fillings met all 3 technical quality criteria when compared to 48.6% in 2014 and 44.7% in 2012 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Clinical audit-feedback cycle is an effective educational tool for improving dental undergraduates' compliance with record keeping and performance in the technical quality of RCT.
METHODS: An iterative e-Delphi technique was employed as the method for gathering consensus on a range of topics found pertinent to affect orthodontic teaching and learning established through literature review. A total of ten expert panellists were recruited through a targeted invitation to the orthodontists from Malaysian public universities offering undergraduate dental education. The e-Delphi comprised of three rounds of anonymous e-survey. The consensus was sought for two open-ended and two closed-ended questions.
RESULTS: The response rates for all the three rounds were 100 per cent. The total number of questions responded by the participants in all the three rounds was forty-four. Round one achieved consensus on two closed-ended questions. Round two achieved a consensus on twenty-eight out of thirty-four (82.35%) questions with round three achieving a consensus on four out of six (66.66%) questions. A 70% consensus was considered as the minimum level of agreement for all the rounds. In total, consensus and agreement were achieved on two closed-ended questions and twenty-nine items from the open-ended questions.
CONCLUSION: The study was able to identify a range of issues affecting undergraduate orthodontic education with a good level of consensus using the e-Delphi technique highlighting the need for curriculum refinement. The study has, in addition, proposed tangible methods to enable such a change.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a private university in Malaysia. A total of 188 undergraduate dental students were interviewed using a pre-tested and self-rated questionnaire. Data collected from participants were analysed using SPSS version 18.0. Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and multiple logistic regression analyses were applied to study the relationship between explanatory variables and excessive Facebook use and excessive mobile texting.
RESULTS: The prevalence of excessive Facebook use and excessive mobile texting amongst undergraduate dental students was found to be 33.2% and 33.0%, respectively. According to a multivariate analysis, texting habits, such as the presence of daytime sleepiness after texting late at night (aOR = 2.682, 95% CI = 1.142-6.301) and the presence of anxious feelings if students failed to receive a timely response (aOR = 3.819, 95% CI = 1.580-9.230), were determined to be significant predictors of excessive mobile texting. Excessive Facebook use was found to be significantly related to three variables as follows: fewer numbers of close friends (aOR = 2.275, 95% CI = 1.057-4.898), the checking of updates on the Facebook walls of their friends (aOR = 2.582, 95% CI = 1.189-5.605) and the absence of active and vigorous feelings during Facebook use (aOR = 3.401, 95% CI = 1.233-9.434).
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of undergraduate dental students in this study experienced excessive Facebook use and/or excessive mobile texting. Health education and promotion should be instituted to create awareness, whilst students should be advised to practise self-control with respect to both mobile texting and Facebook usage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Master of Science postgraduate students in endodontics, prosthodontics, periodontics, oral surgery and implantology participated in a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The dental specialties were further categorised into restorative and surgical dentistry. A multiple-choice questionnaire with three clinical cases was distributed to the students. Data were analysed for trends using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: There was a 44% response rate; the majority of respondents were from restorative dentistry specialties. Cases 1 and 2 were rated as moderate to high difficulty, and Case 3 was predominantly rated as high difficulty with procedure predictability being the main factor affecting their clinical decision-making in three cases. Endodontic retreatment was selected as the preferred treatment in Cases 1 and 2 and periradicular surgery in Case 3. The students were fairly confident in managing Cases 1 and 2, but not in Case 3. Referral patterns were consistent in Cases 1 and 2 with endodontists being the first choice of referral except for Case 3 where 48% preferred to refer to oral surgeons and 35% choosing endodontists. Some indication of differences between specialties were noted throughout. Years in practice appeared to be related to the importance of predictability in Case 3 only.
CONCLUSION: Considerable inter-clinician variability was noted whereby specialty postgraduate training impacted on clinical decision-making. Overall, procedural predictability, technical difficulty, risk of damage to the tooth and patient preference were the most highly ranked factors affecting clinical decision-making. Evidence-based treatment guidelines and dental curricula should be reviewed to enhance inter-clinician agreement in clinical decision-making, ultimately improving patient care.