Learning effects of different training models for border molding from the perspective of dental students

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different practical training models on the comprehension and evaluation of practical training among dental students.MethodsThe study subjects were all sixth-year dental students at our institute, and the study took place over three consecutive years (n = 58, 63, and 65, respectively). In practical training, all students learned border molding, and practical models were modified each year from plaster models to silicone models and then to silicone models mounted in mannequins. Immediately after completing clinical training, all students were asked to complete questionnaires consisting of 21 items regarding their overall practical training and their clinical comprehension of border molding. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, and in order to reduce the large number of interrelated questions, exploratory factor analysis was carried out using maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation (κ = 4) and Kaiser normalization. The number of factors was chosen using the Kaiser-Guttman rule, which states that the eigenvalue should be larger than 1, and the scree plot criteria. Items that scored less than 0.25 in communality and exhibited factor loading greater than 0.35 for more than one item were excluded. The defined factors were analyzed for the plaster models, the silicone models alone, and the silicone models with mannequins using the Kruskal-Wallis test and follow-up tests using Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsExploratory factor analysis identified the following three factors: “knowledge of border molding”; “contents of practical training”; and “personal learning attitude”. The students who used silicone models and mannequins gave significantly better evaluations on the “knowledge of border molding” (p < 0.001, both) and “contents of practical training” (p = 0.046, p < 0.001, respectively) subscales than those who used plaster models. No significant differences were observed between those who used silicone models and those who used mannequins. Moreover, no significant differences were found on the “personal learning attitude” subscale among students for any model.ConclusionsThe change in practical training models from plaster to silicone improved student evaluations of border molding training.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-017-0443-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a simulation model used in oral and maxillofacial surgery education

“…In our study, sample size estimation was found to be at least 54 subjects for each cohort by power calculation, similar to previous studies [ 9 ]. When scrutinizing the studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of simulation-based educational interventions, we can see that they have involved a limited number of undergraduate students in trained and untrained groups, with samples of 23 to 42 participants being common [ 21 , 29 – 31 ].…”

“…Before launching the study, the adequate sample size for meaningful comparisons was determined by using the Gpower 3.1 software. The effect size was calculated as 0.30 by relying on Okubo et al’s [ 9 ] study. After that, considering the power of the study as 80% (minimum) and its confidence interval as 95%, it was decided that at least 108 students (54 in each cohort) would be needed.…”

“…The use of mannequin-based simulation models in preclinical education has been valued by educators in fields such as prosthodontics and restorative dentistry [ 9 , 10 , 13 ]. Despite many dental schools worldwide have used mannequins for more than 15 years in those fields, their specifications and the effects of their use remain unclear.…”

“…Despite many dental schools worldwide have used mannequins for more than 15 years in those fields, their specifications and the effects of their use remain unclear. Unsurprisingly, given the use of mannequin-based simulation models in the oral surgery fields in the undergraduate program is relatively newer and trendier than that of other fields, there is scarce investigation and no exact information about the effectiveness of training of oral surgery procedures like forceps extraction on those kind of models [ 7 , 9 , 14 – 16 ]. In addition, various studies indicate that tooth extraction has been known as one of the specific issues of oral surgery field in which undergraduate dental students and trainees feel unprepared, stressed, and technically insecure [ 7 , 15 ].…”