No abstract

No abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the wear resistance of acrylic denture teeth containing silicon dioxide (nano-SiO2) and aluminum dioxide (nano-Al2O3) nanoparticles. Material and Methods: Poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA) denture tooth material was used to denture tooth material was used to fabricate 84 specimens (n=10) containing nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 in concentrations 0.1wt%, 0.3wt%, and 0.5wt% of acrylic powder. A two-body wear testing machine and digital microscope were used to measure the changes in weight loss and surface roughness respectively. One-way ANOVA and pair-wise Tukey’s post-hoc tests were used for data analysis (α = 0.05). Results: Nano-SiO2 modified teeth material demonstrated a significant increase in weight loss in comparison conventional artificial acrylic teeth material (p ˂ 0.05) while nano- Al2O3 modified teeth material demonstrated non-significant increase in weight loss except for 0.5% subgroup (p ˂ 0.05). There is no significant differences regarding roughness change after wear simulation among all tested groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Nano-Al2O3 nanoparticles exhibit less negative effect than nano-SiO2 so; it could be used with caution if necessary.KeywordsAcrylic denture teeth; Al2O3 nanoparticles; SiO2 nanoparticles; wear resistance; surface roughness.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: Acquiring the ability to identify deviations in dental aesthetic norms has been considered as an essential skill for the development of a dental professional. The timing and quality of this development of aesthetic perception has not been explicitly discussed in the dental education literature. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of dental training on the development of smile aesthetic perception, and to compare this perception between dental students and medical students in a similar cohort.Methods: One-hundred dental and medical students were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire, designed to evaluate eight images; using a visual analogue scale (1 least attractive; 100 most attractive). The students rated the smile aesthetics of one 'model' smile image, and seven digitally modified smiles representing major variations in smile features. Data were analyzed using the independent student's t-test.Results: forty-four male and fifty-five female participants were successfully recruited, with a response rate of 99%. Dental students' ratings of smile aesthetics were significantly lower than medical students for seven of the eight images (p<0.05). This difference was greatest for the model smile image, and least for the diminutive lateral incisors image. There were no statistically significant gender-related differences. Conclusions:Within the limitation of this study, the dental curriculum has a significant impact on developing students' perception of dental aesthetics. Longitudinal studies with larger samples sizes, are needed to examine if progress through the dental curriculum affects students' perception of dental aesthetics.

Purpose The use of relative unit values (RUVs) to assess students’ clinical productivity is common in dental education. However, there are large variations on how RUVs are defined, developed, validated, and reported across institutions. This study described the development of a novel educational RUV system. Methods A preparatory phase of literature review and methodological gap analysis, followed by initial conception, pilot testing, and a 2‐round modified Delphi process were conducted. Panelists reviewed the procedure list, nomenclature, purpose of development, basis of calculation of RUVs, and the relative weights of different dental procedures. Also, their perception of the usefulness, fairness, and practicality of the system was assessed. Agreement was set at 80%. Results Eight published educational RUV systems were identified. These data guided the initial conception of the novel Integrated Educational RUVs (IERUVs). Five experts reviewed the system and it was piloted for a full educational cycle. Feedback from faculty and students was used to adjust over‐ or under‐estimated RUVs, with deconstruction of multi‐step procedures. Fifteen experts participated in the second Delphi round (71% response rate). Consensus was reached for 105 procedural RUVs. A total of 93% of the panelists agreed the system was useful, while 71% perceived it as fair and practical. Conclusion(s) Content validity of the new educational RUV was established. The system provides a promising tool for assessing dental students’ clinical performance, as it provides a unified base unit to assess clinical productivity, clinical competence, and comprehensive care cases. Longitudinal evaluations in different contexts are needed to confirm IERUVs validity.