Self-efficacy of undergraduate dental students in Endodontics within Aarhus and Amsterdam.

AIM: To understand whether the self-efficacy of undergraduates is associated with the extent of the endodontic education they received. METHODOLOGY: Data were obtained from three undergraduate endodontic programmes in two universities: Aarhus University (AU), Denmark and the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), the Netherlands. Just before their graduations in 2016 or 2017, students completed a questionnaire that contained the Endodontic General Self-Efficacy Scale and questions on how they valued the education they received in Endodontics. The information on the number and type of root canal treatments participants had performed on patients was collected from dental clinic management systems. Data were ana-lysed using non-parametric tests and multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: The median number of treated root canals on patients per student was 5 in the standard programme at ACTA, 10 in AU, and 14.5 in the extended programme at ACTA. Students' self-efficacy increased with the number of treated root canals; however, retreatments and root canal treatments in molars were negatively associated with self-efficacy. All students wanted more experience in performing root canal treatment on patients. CONCLUSIONS: The endodontic self-efficacy of students from the standard programmes of the two participating universities was comparable. Students' self-efficacy was influenced mostly by their clinical experience when performing root canal treatment. It seems that the more root canal treatments students perform on patients, the greater their self-efficacy is at graduation. However, treating difficult cases (molars and retreatments) might reduce their self-efficacy.

Method of teaching undergraduate students to perform root canal treatment: It's influence on the quality of root fillings.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess whether the method of teaching endodontology influenced the quality of root fillings made by undergraduate students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The method of teaching endodontology at our institution was revised. Changes concerned: the programme (ie method of clinical training and summative assessment), and the supervision whilst performing root canal treatment on patients. An intermediate cohort (N=91) comprised partly students attending the former programme (involving patients) and partly students attending the revised programme (without patients). After succeeding in the summative assessment, the quality of the first root filling made by the student in a patient under supervision of either a general dental practitioner or an endodontist was evaluated according to pre-determined criteria. Data were analysed using Cohen's Kappa, Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Sixty-two per cent (47 of 76) of root fillings made by students who attended the revised programme were of good quality, in comparison with 47% (seven of 15) of those made by students who attended the former programme (P=.274). Less complex treatments had better quality root fillings if students were supervised by endodontists (88% (14 of 16) good quality) than supervised by general dental practitioners (59% (22 of 37) good quality) (P=.045). Complex treatments did not differ in quality of root fillings for the supervision types (P=.825). CONCLUSION: The quality of root fillings made by students who attended the revised programme seems at least as high as that of those who attended the former programme. Higher quality root fillings might be obtained under supervision of endodontists than under supervision of general dental practitioners.