Background Local anaesthesia plays a key role in many aspects of a dentist’s work. The required skills to perform anaesthesia successfully are acquired at university. To take advantage of the possibilities for new teaching formats, a blended learning concept for the local anaesthesia course was developed. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face, blended and e-learning in teaching in local anaesthesia by assessing students’ knowledge gain, performance of practical skills and satisfaction with the course. Methods All participants (n = 37) were randomly allocated into three groups. After acquiring the theoretical background in the blended learning, e-learning or lecture groups, a test to assess knowledge gain was performed. The performance of the practical skills was assessed in a small-group seminar. Student attitudes were evaluated with a questionnaire. Results The blended group showed significantly better results (mean = 17, SD =1.5) in theoretical knowledge gain than the other two groups (e-learning group: mean = 14.7, SD = 2.2; lecture group: mean = 14.8, SD =2.3). When comparing the results of the clinical skills assessment, there was no significant difference among all three groups (p > 0.017). The participants confirmed a high overall satisfaction with the course, in particular with the blended learning approach. Conclusion This study indicates that blended learning improves the learning outcome for theoretical knowledge in teaching local anaesthesia more than either face-to-face learning or e-learning alone. Furthermore, the blended learning approach is highly appreciated by the students. For acquiring practical skills, this study shows that blended learning is as effective as other teaching methods.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution-NonCo mmercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Objectives To summarize the existing evidence on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) of implant‐supported restorations fabricated using a digital workflow in comparison to conventional manufacturing procedures. Methods A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic and manual search focusing on clinical studies evaluating PROMs of implant‐supported restorations. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for implant‐supported restorations were included. PROMS on implant impression procedures and fabrication of final restorations were evaluated using random and fixed effects meta‐analyses, while implant planning/placement was reported descriptively. Results Among 1062 titles identified, 14 studies were finally included, and only seven studies were eligible for meta‐analysis. For implant planning and placement, only a qualitative analysis was possible due to heterogeneity between the studies. For impression procedures, the random effects model revealed statistically significant differences in taste, anxiety, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, and discomfort in favor of optical impressions. No significant difference in the subjective perception of the duration of an impression could be reported. For the final fabrication of restorations, no significant difference between veneered and monolithic posterior restorations was found in terms of esthetic, function, and general satisfaction. Conclusion Most of the studies reporting about PROMs were published during the last ten years and limited to implant‐supported single crowns in the posterior region. Based on PROMs, no scientifically proven recommendation for guided implant placement could be given at this time. Patients showed high preference for optical impressions, whereas no differences between veneered and monolithic restorations could be reported.

Objective To compare the radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters of splinted and non‐splinted fixed dental prostheses on short implants in the posterior region of the lower jaw 3 years after loading. Material and Methods Twenty patients, 15 female and five males, with uni‐ or bilateral free‐end situations in the mandible participated in the study. Two short implants (7 mm) in the posterior mandible were placed and patients were randomized to receive splinted (n = 11) or non‐splinted (n = 13) cemented crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was assessed on radiographs taken with customized positioning jigs at baseline, 1 and 3 years after loading. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured. (ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT03558347). Results After 3‐year survival rate of altogether 48 implants was 100% for both groups. Success rate (according to Papaspyridakos, Chen, Singh, Weber, & Gallucci, 2012) was 84.6% for non‐splinted and 86.4% for splinted implants. At restoration level survival rate was 100% for both groups. Marginal bone level changes showed mean gain of 0.3 ± 0.8 mm for non‐splinted and 0.1 ± 0.5 mm for splinted implants 3 years after loading. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in PI, GI, PD, BOP, and marginal bone loss between both groups (p > .05). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study it can be concluded that splinting crowns on short implants neither seems to affect the amount of marginal bone loss nor peri‐implant health 3 years after loading.