MATERIALS AND METHODS: The flexural strength and flexural modulus of three OPEFB fiber-reinforced PMMA were compared with a conventional and a commercially available reinforced PMMA. The three test groups included OPEFB fibers of 0.5 mm thickness, 2.0 mm thickness, and OPEFB cellulose.
RESULTS: All test group specimens demonstrated improved flexural strength and flexural modulus over conventional PMMA. Reinforcement with OPEFB cellulose showed the highest mean flexural strength and flexural modulus, which were statistically significant when compared to the conventional and commercially reinforced PMMA used in this study. OPEFB fiber in the form of cellulose and 0.5 mm thickness fiber significantly improved flexural strength and flexural modulus of conventional PMMA resin. Further investigation on the properties of PMMA reinforced with OPEFB cellulose is warranted.
CONCLUSIONS: Natural OPEFB fibers, especially OPEFB in cellulose form, can be considered a viable alternative to existing commercially available synthetic fiber reinforced PMMA resin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The module was developed based on the ADDIE (Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model. First, a need analysis was conducted, followed by designing the module to address the needs. Next, the module sought experts' feedback and was piloted. The revised module was implemented among all second-year undergraduate dental students. Finally, a validated questionnaire (5-point Likert scale items and open-ended questions) was used to evaluate students' learning experiences. The questionnaire Likert scale items were analysed descriptively, whereas open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis.
RESULTS: In the analysis phase, a slight misalignment in cognitive competency levels was observed, alongside a need for the inclusion of more hands-on activities. In the design phase, learning objectives and resources were listed. Subsequently, a module consisting of four teaching sessions (3 h each) was developed, and the pilot test showed favourable feedback. The module was then implemented in small groups of 10-12 students. In the evaluation phase, 72 students (97% response rate) completed the questionnaire. The majority of students agreed with all items, with mean scores ranging from 4.53 to 4.72. Open-ended responses highlighted that hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions were useful.
CONCLUSION: Students demonstrated positive learning experiences after participating in the module, advocating for dental educators to consider more hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions in teaching dental materials science.