ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the shaping properties and outcomes of reciprocating instruments in primary teeth. A search was conducted across various electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO (dentistry and oral health sciences), LILACS, Cochrane, Google Scholar (first 100 hits), Open Grey, Ovid, and Shodhganga. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment of the selected articles using Rayyan software. A total of 12 studies were included. All 12 included studies qualified for qualitative analysis and five for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed there was no statistical significance between rotary and reciprocating instruments concerning instrumentation time and canal transportation. The rotary and reciprocating instruments showed better shaping outcomes than hand instruments. Randomized controlled trials are required with adequate quality to perform a meta-analysis to provide better and more substantial evidence to use reciprocating instruments.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: While eye-tracking technology is a validated tool in the field of education it is still in its infancy in the field of Pediatric Dentistry. The primary aim of this study was to determine dental undergraduates' search patterns and visual fixations while viewing panoramic radiographs (PR) using an eye-tracker. The secondary aim was to decide on the potential opportunities to enhance teaching-learning strategies when studying these radiographs. METHODS: Sixty-five dental undergraduates in the final year of their dental education consented to and participated in this study. A Tobii Pro Nano screen-based eye-tracking camera was mounted to the lower edge of a laptop with five different PR uploaded onto the Tobii Studio software. Regions of Interest (ROIs) were pre-determined for the five PR. The participants (17 males and 48 females) viewed all the PR images with no time restrictions and a "think-aloud" protocol was exercised. RESULTS: The average view time for the PR was 245.58 ± 106.7 s. Participants spent significantly less time examining the surrounding structures (14.85 s) than the dentitions (primary: 97.58 s and permanent: 37.58 s). Males demonstrated a slightly higher view time (290.88 ± 97.7 s) than females (229.53 ± 106.05 s). CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed that though the participants focused on the ROI, most of them failed to make the correct diagnosis. In addition, the search patterns of the participants unveiled no sequential viewing of PR. Hence the need to revise the teaching-learning strategies for the systematic interpretation of PR images in the dental curriculum is warranted.
