Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Dental practice (1)
- Evaluation (1)
- Evidence-based dentistry (1)
- Evidence-based medicine (1)
- Questionnaire (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Validation (1)
- dental school (1)
- endodontic curriculum (1)
- endodontic education (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
Aim: To evaluate preclinical education in Endodontology at Austrian, German and Swiss dental schools using an online survey. Methodology: An online survey divided into nine categories was sent using SurveyMonkey software to 37 dental schools, before the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire included 50 questions to evaluate preclinical endodontic education, such as faculty-to-student ratios, topics taught and materials used, in preclinical phantom head courses. Seven and 14 days after the first e-mail contact, dental schools received a reminder e-mail. After four and six weeks, the dental schools were contacted by telephone and asked to participate in the online survey. The processing time was eight weeks in total. Results: The response rate was 89%. Preclinical endodontic education at the participating dental schools differs considerably. Theory classes ranged from 1 to 70 h (15 h mean), and practical classes ranged from 3 to 78 h (39 h mean). The faculty-to-student ratio varied between 1:4 and 1:38 (1:15 mean). Forty-five per cent of the dental schools had a specialist in endodontics teaching theory. Several dental microscopes were available for preclinical teaching purposes at 82% of the dental schools. The majority (82%) taught root canal preparation with rotary or reciprocating NiTi instruments. Overall, 85% of the dental schools taught lateral compaction, amongst other methods, for canal filling. Conclusion: A substantial divergence amongst the dental schools regarding the time dedicated to theory and practical instruction in Endodontology was reported. However, convergence in the use of root canal treatment techniques and materials was reported.
Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to create a valid and reliable set of assessment questions for examining Evidence-based Dentistry (EbD) knowledge. For this reason, we adapted and validated for dental students the Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), which assesses Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) abilities.
Methods: The Berlin Questionnaire was validated with medical residents. We adapted it for use in a dentistry setting. An expert panel reviewed the adapted BQ for content validity. A cross-sectional cohort representing four training levels (EbD-novice dental students, EbD-trained dental students, dentists, and EbM−/EbD-expert faculty) completed the questionnaire. A total of 140 participants comprised the validation set. Internal reliability, item difficulty and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the mean total scores of students to faculty and comparing proportions of students and faculty who passed each item.
Results: Among the 133 participants (52 EbD-novice dental students, 53 EbD-trained dental students, 12 dentists, and 16 EbM-/ EbD-expert faculty), a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference was evident in the total score corresponding to the training level. The total score reliability and psychometric properties of items modified for discipline-specific content were acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.648.
Conclusion: The adapted Berlin Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in Evidence-based Dentistry in dental students. Future research will focus on refining the instrument further.