ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the perceived benefits of video-mediated demonstrations in learning endodontics. Participants in the study were 75 third-year students enrolled in the undergraduate dentistry program at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. After the endodontic preclinical course, the students were introduced to the treatment protocol in the clinic by watching two live patient-demonstrated videos. The first video demonstrated how to communicate with the patient and perform diagnosis and root canal instrumentation. The second video illustrated how to perform bacterial sampling and root canal filling. After the students watched each video, a questionnaire was used to evaluate their opinions about various steps of the endodontic treatment protocol and the benefit of such educational material for their practice. Of the total 75 students, 72 completed the first questionnaire (96% response rate), and 65 completed the second questionnaire (87% response rate). The results showed that the students perceived high value in the video demonstrations related to treatment procedure. A statistically significant difference was observed between the perceived benefits of the first and second sessions in communication and treatment procedure (p<0.001). Further studies are needed to assess improvement in the design and delivery format for video demonstrations to enhance their effectiveness as a teaching modality for endodontics.
Subject(s)
Education, Dental , Endodontics/education , Students, Dental , Teaching Materials , Video Recording , Attitude of Health Personnel , Communication , Dental Pulp Diseases/diagnosis , Dental Pulp Diseases/therapy , Dentist-Patient Relations , Humans , Learning , Periapical Diseases/diagnosis , Periapical Diseases/therapy , Root Canal Obturation/methods , Root Canal Preparation/instrumentation , Root Canal Preparation/methods , Students, Dental/psychology , Teaching/methodsABSTRACT
This in vitro study compare cleanliness of tooth canal walls regarding smear layer after final treatment with 24% ethylenediaminetetraaceticacid (EDTA) and 3% EDTA with or without surfactant. Sixty extracted teeth, randomly distributed into four groups, were prepared using ProFile instruments (DENTSPLY, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and subjected to different final irrigation solutions: group A, 24% EDTA; group B, 3% EDTA with surfactant; group C (positive control), 3% EDTA; and group D (negative control), 0.5% sodium hypochlorite. Roots were sectioned, examined and evaluated under scanning electron microscope; microphotographs were taken for the coronal, middle and apical third of each specimen. Statistical analysis showed no difference regarding presence of smear layer between test groups in the coronal and apical sections. They were cleaned in the coronal sections and uncleaned in the apical sections. In the middle section, group B was significantly cleaner (p < 0.05) than the other groups. In conclusion, surfactant in combination with EDTA did not improve root canal cleanliness and there is no difference between different EDTA concentrations in removing the smear layer.
