A comparison of simulation and traditional local anesthesia teaching methods among dental hygiene students.
anesthesia
dental
education
oral hygiene
teaching methods
Journal
Journal of dental education
ISSN: 1930-7837
Titre abrégé: J Dent Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
revised:
20
12
2022
received:
02
08
2022
accepted:
17
02
2023
medline:
23
6
2023
pubmed:
18
3
2023
entrez:
17
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic forced dental educators to quickly modify the teaching-learning platform without testing outcomes of alternative teaching methods prior to implementation. One critical course affected was the teaching of local anesthesia (LA) that moved from practicing injections using the traditional student-to-student method to the simulation model using manikins. This study compared two LA teaching methods (student-to-student versus simulation) in two consecutive cohorts before and during the pandemic to assess differences in students' skill level and self-confidence. This quasi-experimental study recruited a convenience sample of dental hygiene students at the University of Minnesota during 2020 and 2021. Consent was collected prior to student-to-student injection practice and survey distribution. Data collected were clinical and summative clinical assessments to determine LA skill level, and student surveys to assess self-confidence. Analyses included descriptive statistics, linear models within and between cohorts, and inductive analysis for qualitative survey responses. Fifty of 57 students (88%) completed the survey, and 54 (95%) consented access to their clinical assessments. Skill level was significantly higher for the simulation cohort compared to the student-to-student cohort on the LA summative clinical assessment (59.0 vs. 55.6, p = 0.004). No differences were found in self-confidence between cohorts. A positive association was found between students' self-confidence and skill levels for both cohorts, but only student-to-student cohort results were statistically significant (student-to-student: r = 0.44, p = 0.02; simulation: r = 0.24, p = 0.26). Results support incorporating simulation manikin teaching methods for LA with a student-to-student partner component.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic forced dental educators to quickly modify the teaching-learning platform without testing outcomes of alternative teaching methods prior to implementation. One critical course affected was the teaching of local anesthesia (LA) that moved from practicing injections using the traditional student-to-student method to the simulation model using manikins.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
This study compared two LA teaching methods (student-to-student versus simulation) in two consecutive cohorts before and during the pandemic to assess differences in students' skill level and self-confidence.
METHODS
METHODS
This quasi-experimental study recruited a convenience sample of dental hygiene students at the University of Minnesota during 2020 and 2021. Consent was collected prior to student-to-student injection practice and survey distribution. Data collected were clinical and summative clinical assessments to determine LA skill level, and student surveys to assess self-confidence. Analyses included descriptive statistics, linear models within and between cohorts, and inductive analysis for qualitative survey responses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty of 57 students (88%) completed the survey, and 54 (95%) consented access to their clinical assessments. Skill level was significantly higher for the simulation cohort compared to the student-to-student cohort on the LA summative clinical assessment (59.0 vs. 55.6, p = 0.004). No differences were found in self-confidence between cohorts. A positive association was found between students' self-confidence and skill levels for both cohorts, but only student-to-student cohort results were statistically significant (student-to-student: r = 0.44, p = 0.02; simulation: r = 0.24, p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Results support incorporating simulation manikin teaching methods for LA with a student-to-student partner component.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
755-763Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Dental Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Dental Education Association.
Références
Knipfer C, Rohde M, Oetter N, et al. Local anaesthesia training for undergraduate students - how big is the step from model to man. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):1-8.
Lee JS, Graham R, Bassiur JP, et al. Evaluation of a local anesthesia simulation model with dental students as novice clinicians. J Dent Educ. 2015;79(12):1411-1417.
Wong G, Apthorpe HC, Ruiz K, et al. A tale of two teaching methods: students’ clinical perspectives on administering dental local anesthetics. J Dent Educ. 2020;84(2):166-175.
Said Yekta S, Lampert F, Kazemi S, et al. Evaluation of new injection and cavity preparation model in local anesthesia teaching. J Dent Educ. 2013;77(1):51-57.
Chandrasekaran B, Cugati N, Kumaresan R. Dental students’ perception and anxiety levels during their first local anesthetic injection. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2014;21(6):44-50.
Rosenberg M, Orr DL, Starley ED, et al. Student-to-student local anesthesia injections in dental education: moral, ethical, and legal issues. J Dent Educ. 2009;73(1):127-132.
Kuscu OO, Kucuktepe C, Caglar E, et al. Role of “Student-to-student local analgesia administration” on undergraduate students’ opinions regarding “pain-free local analgesia technique” in children. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17(3):185-189.
López-Cabrera C, Hernández-Rivas EJ, Komabayashi T, et al. Positive influence of a dental anaesthesia simulation model on the perception of learning by Mexican dental students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2017;21(4):e142-e147.
Vural Ç, Bozkurt P, Vardar Acar C, et al. Analysis of confidence levels and application success rates in simulator-based dental anesthesia education among undergraduate dental students. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79:1236.e1-1236.e7.
Sukumar S, Dracopoulos SA, Martin FE. Dental education in the time of SARS-CoV-2. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020;25(2):325-331.
Sunell S, Laronde DM, Kanji Z. Dental hygiene graduates’ educational preparedness: self-confidence ratings of the CDHA baccalaureate competencies. Int J Dent Hyg. 2020;18(3):295-306.
Hagbaghery MA, Salsali M, Ahmadi F. The factors facilitating and inhibiting effective clinical decision-making in nursing: a qualitative study. BMC Nurs. 2004;3:1-11.
Meisha DE, Al-dabbagh RA. Self-confidence as a predictor of senior dental student academic success. J Dent Educ. 2021;85:1497-1503.
Sternberg R, Zhang L. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning and Cognitive Styles. Routledge; 2014.
Mahmoud A, Nagy ZK. Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. J Eng Educ. 2009;98(3):283-294.
Connelley B. High-Fidelity Simulation Influences on Novice Baccalaureate Nurisng Students. ProQuest LLC; 2015.
McLeod S. Kolb's learning styles and experiential learning cycle. Simply Psychology. 2017.
Hormann J. Local anesthesia techniques: a comparison of cohorts at the university of Minnesota. 2021.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2020.