• Users Online: 1060
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-6

Impact of one-to-one mentoring sessions on student and staff evaluation of preclinical complete denture teeth setup exercise


Depatment of Prosthodontics, Rajah Muthiah Dental College and Hospital, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication3-Jul-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Leoney Andonissamy
No. 17 Pt, Second Main Road, Cauvery Nagar, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijmd.ijmd_52_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: The undergraduate dental curriculum in most of the Indian dental schools comprises of the initial preparatory phase of preclinical exercises followed by clinical exercises. In the preclinical phase, setting of artificial teeth and their evaluation by staff members is an essential part of prosthodontic dental curriculum. The method of evaluation has always been one dimensional and subject to variation.
Objective: The primary objective of the study is the importance of one-to-one mentoring of staff with students on their performance in preclinical complete denture setup. The other objectives of the study include the evaluation of the importance of self-evaluation of students on their overall performance as well as agreement level between students and staff evaluation.
Subjects and Methods: Twenty-six male and female 2nd year preclinical students were chosen for the study. Pre- and posttests were administered to the students, and evaluation of their practical exercises was done by means of a structured evaluation form. Descriptive statistics, t-test, and Z–test were done.
Results: In comparison between pre- and posttest student evaluation, only cast and record bases fabrication and arch form establishment steps showed improvement, which was statistically significant
(P = 0.006 and P= 0.051, respectively). In comparison between pre- and posttest staff evaluation, relationship with the occlusal plane and occlusal relationship of posterior teeth to ridge showed improvement, which was statistically significant (P = 0.015 and P = 0.001, respectively).
Conclusion: The agreement levels of staff and student pre- and posttest evaluation were very good, but the present study only elucidates only minor improvements in tooth-setting exercise both at student and staff pre- and posttest evaluations. The tooth-setting criteria which showed improvements were record bases fabrication, arch form establishment, relationship with the occlusal plane, and occlusal relationship of posterior teeth to ridge.

Keywords: Complete denture; steps in denture fabrication; tooth-setting exercise


How to cite this article:
Andonissamy L, Karthikeyan S, Ali SA. Impact of one-to-one mentoring sessions on student and staff evaluation of preclinical complete denture teeth setup exercise. Indian J Multidiscip Dent 2018;8:3-6

How to cite this URL:
Andonissamy L, Karthikeyan S, Ali SA. Impact of one-to-one mentoring sessions on student and staff evaluation of preclinical complete denture teeth setup exercise. Indian J Multidiscip Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 22];8:3-6. Available from: http://www.ijmdent.com/text.asp?2018/8/1/3/235728




  Introduction Top


The undergraduate dental curriculum in most of the Indian dental schools comprises of the initial preparatory phase of preclinical exercises followed by clinical exercises. In the preclinical phase, the setting of artificial teeth for the fabrication of complete dentures is an essential part of prosthodontic treatment. The teaching of this laboratory work for the dental students helps the students to gain abstract understanding of the process of denture fabrication.[1] Classroom-based lectures are considered to be the best teaching method in conveying conceptual knowledge. Lecture sessions coupled with video and PowerPoint presentations dissipate knowledge-based learning to students describing clinical scenarios through simulating models.[2],[3],[4] Group discussions provide space for students to develop rapport, and live demonstrations provide firsthand experience of clinical skills required.[5],[6],[7],[8] Blended learning approach is the process of incorporating two or more teaching methods such as video demonstrations and lecture sessions along with traditional instructor-based learning.[9]

The evaluation of preclinical exercise of teeth setting for complete dentures by staff members handling preclinical classes has been a routine evaluating process in prosthodontics department of dental institutions. The staff evaluation often has been the traditional way of evaluating preclinical skill work. This method had always been one dimensional and subjective variation in judging a candidate's work influenced the evaluation process. This method of evaluation has always been unstructured in most of the dental curricula. Recently, structured method of evaluation of preclinical teeth setup exercises has been emphasized. This study will showcase the importance of one-to-one mentoring of staff with students on their performance in preclinical complete denture setup.

Objectives

  1. Importance of one-to-one mentoring sessions on student performance levels
  2. Importance of self-evaluation of students on their overall performance
  3. Agreement level between students and staff evaluation.



  Subjects and Methods Top


Second year preclinical students were selected for the study. The total number of students was 26 (included both boys and girls). The preclinical prosthodontic exercise chosen for the study is preclinical teeth setup for maxillary and mandibular complete dentures. Initially, the complete demonstration was given regarding the teeth setup to the students. The students were made to do a complete teeth setup on their own with frequent inputs/corrections from the staff members. Adequate guidance was given to the students regarding all aspects of the tooth-setting process. The tooth-setting exercise was approved only when all the adequate requirements were fulfilled. Later, the tooth setup test was organized giving prior notice to the students. The time allotted to the students was 2 h. The test was conducted, and evaluation was done following the structured evaluation sheet.

The parameters were taken into consideration through the evaluation sheet including the following: cast and record bases, occlusal rim and mounting, arch form, axial inclination of teeth, relation with the occlusal plane, anterior teeth relation, occlusion, relation of posterior teeth to ridge, waxing, carving, and neatness.

Evaluation was subjectively done with scores for each parameter ranging from 0 to 10. Here, 0 stands for completely nonsatisfactory work and 10 stands for completely satisfactory work. A total of eight parameters were taken into consideration for a single student. Hence, the minimum and maximum scores obtained by students would be between 0 and 80.

The evaluation was followed by one-to-one mentoring session with students during which the following were done:

  1. The students were given mentoring regarding the errors they have done in the test
  2. The students' feedbacks regarding the pros and cons of the test were also obtained.


The most common feedbacks obtained from the students were mainly two which are as follows:

  1. Lack of time for the test (2 h was not enough)
  2. They were not confident with the wax-up of the teeth setup.


These two feedbacks were taken into consideration and were addressed. First, wax-up demonstration including festooning was given to the students. Second, students were given extra ½ h (total of 2½ h) to complete the test.

About 1 month later, a second test was organized during which 2½ h were given to the students to complete the test. This test was evaluated first by the students and later by the staff members. During the evaluation by the staff member, the errors done by the students were pinpointed to them. The student self-evaluation and staff evaluation before and after the intervention (i.e., wax-up demonstration and time increase) were compared and statistically verified.


  Results Top


Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software version 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, US). The total score of complete denture preclinical teeth setup exercise ranges from 0 to 80. This score has been verified for the normality of the data. Pre- and posttest score of the students and postevaluation of the teachers follow the normal distribution (by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality). Further paired t-test [Table 1] will overcome the variations in the data as the same sample is assessed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test (nonparametric test) was used as the data are ordinal in nature and are not normally distributed [Table 2] and [Table 3].
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of the scores assessed at the pre- and posttest phase

Click here to view
Table 2: Mean scores of all the 8 criteria at the pre and posttest levels of students evaluation along with their respective Z values

Click here to view
Table 3: Mean scores of all the 8 criteria at the pre- and posttest levels of staff evaluation along with their respective Z values. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was done to compare pre- and post test scores of staff evaluation

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


It is essential for the dental students to acquire essential clinical and laboratory steps in complete denture fabrication during the preclinical years.[1] The laboratory steps involved in preclinical complete denture exercises include fabrication of occlusal rims, articulation of occlusal rims on an articulator, teeth setting, wax-up, and processing of complete dentures. All of these steps are systematically evaluated by the staff-in-charge.[10]

Development of skill involves the concept of learning wherein performance is enhanced through practice until the motor skills become automatic. Unless the preclinical students are made to do dummy tooth-setting exercises, they would just be an observer.[11],[12] Conventionally, the staff evaluate the students' practical works. However, in the present study, student self-evaluation is also carried out to enable students to acknowledge the pitfalls in their work.

One of the study objectives in the present study is to find out the agreement level on evaluation process of the preclinical tooth-setting practical exercise between staff and student. On pretest assessment, the agreement level was found to be 0.932 which is significant at P < 0.001. This indicates a very good agreement exists between staff and students assessment of preclinical tooth-setting exercise. Similarly, on posttest assessment, the agreement level was found to be 0.720 which is significant at P = 0.001 [Table 4].
Table 4: Agreement between student and staff evaluation

Click here to view


The average pretest evaluation was found to be 36.2 with SD 6.2. At the posttest phase, the mean value was found to be 38.5 with SD 4.4 [Table 1].

To assess any significant improvement was present, paired t-test has been applied. The nonsignificant P value infers the intervention is not effective as per the student evaluation process. This could be due to the fact of hindrance of giving adequate marks during self-evaluation to avoid embarrassment from staff during staff evaluation. However, at the posttest phase, there is a mild improvement in the skill levels of the students as per the staff evaluation. This may be due to the fact that a single evaluator does an evaluation comparing students' performance before and after the intervention.

Learning in small groups enables each student to participate and interacts with the operator and also aids self- and peer-evaluation.[1],[13] However, demonstrations to small group of students are time-consuming, but they enhance the confidence among students to perform practical procedure.[7],[14] Demonstrations on an articulated model by an instructor focus on the skill to be learnt.[1],[13]

Students preferred live demonstrations as they allowed them the possibility of asking ask questions, interacting with the instructor as well as understanding difficulties and errors during the progress of the procedure.[15],[16]

In the present study, the importance of one-to-one mentoring is taken into consideration. This intervention enables the individual student to clarify their mistakes with the staff. In the present study, Z test was done to compare pre- and posttest scores of students' evaluation. Among the eight criteria of scoring, only cast and record bases fabrication and arch form establishment showed improvement, which was statistically significant (P = 0.006 and P = 0.051, respectively).

At the staff evaluation, only relationship with the occlusal plane and occlusal relationship of posterior teeth to ridge showed improvement, which was statistically significant (P = 0.015 and P = 0.001, respectively).

Limitations

Instructor-associated fatigue is one of the limitations of the study. Knowledge acquired by the students is limited as it is imparted by a single instructor.


  Conclusion Top


The agreement levels of staff and student pre- and posttest evaluation was very good, but the present study only elucidates only minor improvements in tooth-setting exercise both at student and staff pre- and posttest evaluations. The tooth-setting criteria which showed improvements were record bases fabrication, arch form establishment, relationship with the occlusal plane, and occlusal relationship of posterior teeth to ridge.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Obrez A, Lee DJ, Organ-Boshes A, Yuan JC, Knight GW. A clinically oriented complete denture program for second-year dental students. J Dent Educ 2009;73:1194-201.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mast RA, Watson JJ. Dental learning resources center. J Dent Educ 1976;40:797-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Eynon R, Perryer G, Walmsley AD. Dental undergraduate expectations and opinions of web-based courseware to supplement traditional teaching methods. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7:103-10.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Kalwitzki M, Rosendahl R, Göttle R, Weiger R. Acceptance of video-based teaching in paediatric dentistry by undergraduate dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7:66-71.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Alqahtani ND, Al-Jewair T, Al-Moammar K, Albarakati SF, ALkofide EA. Live demonstration versus procedural video: A comparison of two methods for teaching an orthodontic laboratory procedure. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:199.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mirkarimi M, Kalati F, Moghadam AA. A comparison between video tape and live demonstration methods for teaching of fissure sealant placement procedures for dental students of Zahedan University of medical sciences in 2010-2011. J Dent Med 2011;24:252-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Packer ME, Rogers JO, Coward TJ, Newman PS, Wakeley R. A comparison between videotaped and live demonstrations, for the teaching of removable partial denture procedures. Eur J Dent Educ 2001;5:17-22.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Mir MA, Marshall RJ, Evans RW, Hall R, Duthie HL. Comparison between videotape and personal teaching as methods of communicating clinical skills to medical students. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984;289:31-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Faraone KL, Garrett PH, Romberg E. A blended learning approach to teaching pre-clinical complete denture prosthodontics. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17:e22-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Fenn HR, Liddelow KP, Gimson AP. Setting up the teeth on a plane line articulator. Clin Dent Prosthet 2008;2:239-57.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA. Motor Learning and Performance: A Problem-Based Learning Approach. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers; 2004. p. 225-60.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Weintraub GS, Weintraub AM. The dental student as technician: An 18-year follow-up of clinical laboratory programs. J Prosthodont 1997;6:197-203.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Fakhry A, Cooper S, Slach N, Krenz S. Video-assisted clinical instruction in dentistry. Overview and applications. Eur J Dent Educ 2007;11:230-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Packer ME, Scott BJ, Davis DM. An assessment of the influence of clinical demonstrations on the confidence of undergraduate dental students, when treating patients requiring removable partial dentures. Eur J Dent Educ 1999;3:133-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Bazyk S, Jeziorowski J. Videotaped versus live instruction in demonstrating evaluation skills to occupational therapy students. Am J Occup Ther 1989;43465-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Newble D, Cannon R. A Handbook for Medical Teachers. 2nd ed. Lancaster, MTP: Press Ltd.; 1987. p. 127-32.  Back to cited text no. 16
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed359    
    Printed42    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded8    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]