Development and Evaluation of a New Dental Model at Tokyo Medical and Dental University for the Practice of Periodontal Pocket Probing

Abstract

Dental and dental hygiene students must acquire the skill of measuring periodontal pockets and learn to identify the bottom of a pocket, especially of deep periodontal pockets. A new dental model that would enable students to practice measuring deep periodontal pockets was developed at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of this model. Twenty dental hygiene students in their third year at the school and twenty-four instructors or dental hygienists of the University Hospital measured periodontal pockets on the newly designed dental model. Feasibility and effectiveness of the model were evaluated based on periodontal probing by the students and instructors, as well as results of a questionnaire. The results demonstrated an intraexaminer agreement (within ±1 mm) averaging 91 percent. The mean percentages of correct answers of the students and instructors were 82 percent and 80 percent, respectively. More than 90 percent of the instructors and students reported that the new model would be suitable for pocket probing training. In the questionnaire, they responded that this practice using the new model would contribute to students' future and that they wanted to try other dental models with various probing depths. The new dental model designed for periodontal pocket probing training was reported to be feasible and effective for student practice.

Fretibacterium sp. human oral taxon 360 is a novel biomarker for periodontitis screening in the Japanese population

“…The examiners evaluated 36 sites in 6 teeth on this dental model. Calibration was accepted if measurement error was within a millimeter at ≥ 90%[21]. Then, all patients were diagnosed by one periodontist (H.K.)…”

A New Model for Training in Periodontal Examinations Using Manikins

“…In the results, experienced dentists exhibited almost perfect intra‐ and inter‐examiner reliability and accuracy regarding the preset values for probing depths and gingival recession under tolerable difference criteria, whereas they failed to achieve these results based on absolute difference criteria. In a study with another model for periodontal examination, the reliability also exceeded the threshold level for almost perfect reliability at tolerable difference, a finding that was then used to demonstrate that the model was feasible and effective for student practice 5 . Polson recommended using a tolerance of ±1 mm to calculate the percentages of reproducibility agreement in clinical periodontal examiner calibration data 10 .…”

“…Sunaga et al sought to mimic the periodontal pocket structure by inserting soft materials into the artificial bone surrounding the teeth, 5 but this soft tissue material is likely to be degraded during long‐term use by students using excessive probing pressures. To counter this, we built a small protuberance at the junction between the tooth and the artificial bone (Figure 2, panel a) that was approximately 1 mm wide and extended at an angle of 60 to 80 degrees.…”

“…Although models are widely used to train students in subgingival calculus removal, 4 Sunaga et al’s research is one of the rare studies of the use of manikins for the training of a periodontal examination 5 . One reason for this could be that it is difficult to investigate the learning behavior of students as they learn to perform a periodontal examination 6 .…”

Assessment of a developed pig cadaver model for teaching crown lengthening surgical procedures

“…With this in mind, there are two main models for training periodontal treatments: silicone imitating models and animal models ( Rühling et al, 2002 ; König et al, 2002 ; Stacy, 1967 ; Bonnette & Hayward, 1969 ; Cumming & Glavind, 1972 ; Al-Qareer, Afsah & Müller, 2004 ). Although silicone models provide a similar appearance of human periodontal tissues in order to mimic characteristics of periodontal lesions, the texture is harder and tougher than the human gingival tissue, and cannot fully simulate the true environment during periodontal surgery ( Heym et al, 2016 ; Sunaga et al, 2013 ). In recent years, three-dimensional printed bone models were used as training or simulation models for tumor removal and bone reconstruction, but they were not suitable for periodontal surgery training since the periodontal soft tissue could not be printed ( Meglioli et al, 2020 ).…”