A guiding principle of radiation safety is ensuring that radiation dosage is as low as possible while yielding the necessary diagnostic information. Intraoral images taken with conventional dental film have a higher re-exposure rate when taken by dental students compared to experienced staff. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of and reasons for re-exposure of digital intraoral images taken by third- and fourth-year dental students in a dental school clinic. At one dental school in Canada, the total number of intraoral images taken by third- and fourth-year dental students, re-exposures, and error descriptions were extracted from patient clinical records for an eight-month period (September 2015 to April 2016). The data were categorized to distinguish between digital images taken with solid-state sensors or photostimulable phosphor plates (PSP). The results showed that 9,397 intraoral images were made, and 1,064 required re-exposure. The most common error requiring re-exposure for bitewing images was an error in placement of the receptor too far mesially or distally (29% for sensors and 18% for PSP). The most common error requiring re-exposure for periapical images was inadequate capture of the periapical area (37% for sensors and 6% for PSP). A retake rate of 11% was calculated, and the common technique errors causing image deficiencies were identified. Educational intervention can now be specifically designed to reduce the retake rate and radiation dose for future patients.

There is moderate evidence suggesting that rectangular collimation significantly reduces radiation dose when compared with round collimation, justifying its implementation in clinical settings/private practices while taking intraoral radiographs.

Objective This study assessed senior dental hygiene (DH) students’ self‐reported confidence in interpreting dental radiographs following the introduction of a blended learning (BL) module for radiology interpretation. The assessment of students was conducted five months prior to graduation. Methods A BL oral radiology module was designed. In order to capture the context, descriptions and differences of students’ experience and confidence, a qualitative research approach was selected. Data were captured using a semi‐structured interview process and analysed using phenomenographic methods. Results Sixteen students were interviewed. Blinded transcripts were analysed, and the main themes relating to confidence were extracted and arranged into categories. The categories were coded as to how confident (low, medium or high) each of the students felt specific to varying contexts and complexities of radiographic interpretation. Conclusion Predominately, the BL model had a positive impact on DH students’ confidence in the interpretation of radiographic findings. However, when asked about their level of overall confidence in interpreting dental radiographs, students still did not describe themselves as confident for all potential findings on radiographs at this point in their education. The students highlighted the importance of having patient history details and clinical assessment findings included in the interpretation exercises and expressed a desire to collaborate with other professionals when interpreting radiographs.

Objective: Although assessment is essential to accurately represent student learning, little is currently known about student and faculty perceptions of assessment in dental schools. Our study aimed to explore faculty and student views of didactic and clinical assessments in the School of Dentistry at the University of Alberta. Method: Qualitative description informed the study design. Data were collected through focus groups and analysed inductively using manifest content analysis. Results: Five focus groups were conducted with faculty (n = 34) and three with students (n = 19). Faculty and student views of assessment were related to improvements made (perceived positive changes), improvements needed (perceived limitations) and improvements recommended (recommendations to improve perceived limitations). Faculty and students reported that improvements made (eg adequacy of assessment to students' levels of training) varied across instructors, courses and learning environments. Both faculty and students perceived clinical assessments as less appropriate than didactic assessments. Faculty perceived limitations were mostly related to assessment appropriateness, especially assessment accuracy and comprehensiveness, whilst student perceived limitations included other issues related to appropriateness (eg misalignment with course objectives) as well as issues related to assessment volume, pace and scheduling. Similarly, faculty recommendations focused on enhancing the assessment of clinical competencies, whilst students' recommendations aimed to also improve assessment scheduling, volume and usage (eg for learning purposes). Conclusions: Faculty and student views of assessment complemented one another. Our data show that assessment in dental education is multidimensional, so that multilevel strategies may be needed to improve this component of dental curricula.

Introduction Clinical experience tracking mechanisms for students at dental schools provide patient assignment, student experience, and learning progression feedback. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental students’ clinical experiences following the implementation of a learning progression dashboard (LPD). Methods After developing and deploying an electronic LPD using PHP, secondary data analysis on dental students’ clinical experiences from 2017–2019 was conducted. Student experience differences were compared between the year before continuous use of the LPD and the first year using it. LPD data contained the required clinical procedures dentistry students must perform across all disciplines and the number of planned, in progress, and completed tasks each student has accomplished. Using two time points, the students’ experiences were compared. Univariate statistics and independent t‐tests were conducted in R for detecting the differences in the number and categories of codes. Results The number and category of codes showed significant differences between the academic year 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 for both third‐ and fourth‐year dental students after one and two terms. Overall, students recorded a 26% greater number of treatment codes and experienced a 26% greater number of code categories compared to the previous year. Conclusion Applying information management methods such as dashboards can better inform educators on student clinical experiences and improve clinical learning outcomes for students.