A comparison of student learning in a critical thinking exercise for technology decision‐making occurred with the onset of coronavirus and the switch from face‐to‐face to distance with Zoom. Literature on explicit critical thinking skill sets is scant in any format, including distance learning. While face‐to‐face and Zoom have similarities, seizing this opportunity for comparison can set the stage to determine soundness of distance learning in critical thinking on a preliminary basis. The learning outcome, learning guide and assessment instrument remained the same for the exercise in both formats; student teams presented analyses of different technologies with assessment by 2 faculty as before. Forty students had not completed the exercise when the coronavirus shut down occurred. Students performed at as high a level using virtual/Zoom as with face‐to‐face.

Introduction Bone remodeling after tooth extraction and immediate implant placement will occur nonetheless and as a result, additional hard and soft tissue augmentations are often necessary to compensate for the loss of alveolar ridge dimension. The socket shield (SS) technique has shown encouraging clinical results in maintaining original ridge morphology, and thus, may be used as an alternative protocol for the conventional immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Case Series The authors report three cases of SS technique used in conjunction with immediate implant placement in an anterior maxilla. The patients were followed for a period of 2 to 6 years, and the evolution of the soft and hard tissue surrounding the implants was documented. Conclusions The SS technique produces virtually no change in the hard and soft tissue dimensions with relatively minimal invasive surgical interventions and shorter treatment time.

No abstract

No abstract

Conceptualizing:The next patient interaction is logical, essential, and largely done intuitively. Main purpose:To design and test a succinct learning guide for student guidance and student-faculty interaction in conceptualizing the next patient interaction. Methods:In 2021 and 2022, faculty scored questions from 1-5: Recognize deviation from the ideal? Articulate how and how much the situation deviated? Gage consequences of the situation? Assess own capabilities? To what extent does the student have a clear grasp of the procedural outcome? Faculty were also given open-ended questions.Results: Forty-eight reports were completed, 25 D3 and 23 D4. Three hundred thirty-five faculty entries were made in the questions calling for a 1-5 response out of a possible 336 responses. Statistically significant differences were noted. Students were better able to recognize the situation as different from ideal than to articulate how and how much the situation deviated. Students were better able to grasp how and how much this situation differs from the ideal than to assess own capabilities. D4 students were better able to recognize deviation from the ideal and to articulate how and how much the situation deviated than were D3 students. For open-ended questions, more students were scored as "Prepared" than were scored as "Unsure" and "Missed" combined. Conclusions: The exercise is seen as a succinct and constructive (nonjudgmental) path to guide the student's conceptualization of the next patient encounter before the encounter begins. Next steps will be incremental for wider use in a clinical teaching environment.