Comparison of Undergraduate Students’ Understanding, Performance, and Perception of 3D Digital Cast vs. Plaster Model for Orthodontic Space Analysis

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Dental Education Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1002/jdd.13868
Heba H. Bakhsh, Dur Alomair, Marwa Halwani, Nozha Sawan, Hala Abdullah Alsalman
{"title":"Comparison of Undergraduate Students’ Understanding, Performance, and Perception of 3D Digital Cast vs. Plaster Model for Orthodontic Space Analysis","authors":"Heba H. Bakhsh,&nbsp;Dur Alomair,&nbsp;Marwa Halwani,&nbsp;Nozha Sawan,&nbsp;Hala Abdullah Alsalman","doi":"10.1002/jdd.13868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to assess undergraduate dental students’ performance, perception, and preference when applying space analysis using digital dental models (DDM) compared to plaster dental models (PDM).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A prospective cohort observational study at our institution evaluated student performance by measuring the time taken and the frequency of assistance requests for accurate results (<i>n</i> = 34). After completing both methods, students’ perceptions of each method were assessed via a questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale (<i>n</i> = 69).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, the students using the DDM had significantly lower durations to achieve accurate space analysis results <i>p</i> = 0.003 when compared to the students using the PDM. On day one, the DDM group showed significantly lower duration and significantly less need for assistance than the PDM group <i>p</i> = 0.025 and <i>p</i> = 0.015, respectively. However, on day two, there was no significant difference between the two groups <i>p</i> = 0.058 and <i>p</i> = 0.622, respectively. The feedback showed that a higher percentage of students thought using DDM for space analysis is easier, especially with measuring space available (43.5% against 31%). Still, most prefer PDM for learning and understanding (89.8% vs. 68%), and most prefer to use DDM for space analysis in the future (59.4% compared to 21.7%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Undergraduate dental students perform better in orthodontic space analysis using DDM than PDM, achieving accurate results faster and with less assistance. Most students preferred PDM for learning and knowledge retention, but most preferred DDM for future use.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50216,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Education","volume":"89 10","pages":"1415-1423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jdd.13868","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess undergraduate dental students’ performance, perception, and preference when applying space analysis using digital dental models (DDM) compared to plaster dental models (PDM).

Methods

A prospective cohort observational study at our institution evaluated student performance by measuring the time taken and the frequency of assistance requests for accurate results (n = 34). After completing both methods, students’ perceptions of each method were assessed via a questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale (n = 69).

Results

Overall, the students using the DDM had significantly lower durations to achieve accurate space analysis results p = 0.003 when compared to the students using the PDM. On day one, the DDM group showed significantly lower duration and significantly less need for assistance than the PDM group p = 0.025 and p = 0.015, respectively. However, on day two, there was no significant difference between the two groups p = 0.058 and p = 0.622, respectively. The feedback showed that a higher percentage of students thought using DDM for space analysis is easier, especially with measuring space available (43.5% against 31%). Still, most prefer PDM for learning and understanding (89.8% vs. 68%), and most prefer to use DDM for space analysis in the future (59.4% compared to 21.7%).

Conclusions

Undergraduate dental students perform better in orthodontic space analysis using DDM than PDM, achieving accurate results faster and with less assistance. Most students preferred PDM for learning and knowledge retention, but most preferred DDM for future use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学生对3D数字模型与石膏模型正畸空间分析的理解、表现和感知的比较
目的:本研究旨在评估本科牙科学生在使用数字牙科模型(DDM)与石膏牙科模型(PDM)进行空间分析时的表现、感知和偏好。方法:在我校进行了一项前瞻性队列观察研究,通过测量所需时间和请求帮助的频率来评估学生的表现,以获得准确的结果(n = 34)。在完成这两种方法后,通过使用五点李克特量表(n = 69)的问卷评估学生对每种方法的看法。结果:总体而言,与使用PDM的学生相比,使用DDM的学生获得准确空间分析结果的持续时间显着降低p = 0.003。在第一天,DDM组的持续时间显著低于PDM组,对辅助的需求显著低于PDM组(p = 0.025和p = 0.015)。然而,在第2天,两组之间无显著差异p = 0.058和p = 0.622。反馈显示,更高比例的学生认为使用DDM进行空间分析更容易,特别是测量可用空间(43.5%对31%)。尽管如此,大多数人更倾向于使用PDM进行学习和理解(89.8% vs. 68%),大多数人更倾向于使用DDM进行未来的空间分析(59.4% vs. 21.7%)。结论:齿科本科学生使用DDM进行正畸间隙分析的效果优于PDM,可以在较少辅助的情况下更快获得准确的结果。大多数学生倾向于使用PDM来学习和保留知识,但大多数学生更倾向于使用DDM来将来使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Dental Education
Journal of Dental Education 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
21.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Dental Education (JDE) is a peer-reviewed monthly journal that publishes a wide variety of educational and scientific research in dental, allied dental and advanced dental education. Published continuously by the American Dental Education Association since 1936 and internationally recognized as the premier journal for academic dentistry, the JDE publishes articles on such topics as curriculum reform, education research methods, innovative educational and assessment methodologies, faculty development, community-based dental education, student recruitment and admissions, professional and educational ethics, dental education around the world and systematic reviews of educational interest. The JDE is one of the top scholarly journals publishing the most important work in oral health education today; it celebrated its 80th anniversary in 2016.
期刊最新文献
AI-Driven Preclinical Endodontic Simulation and Active Learning Strategies for Competency Development in Undergraduate Dental Education. Effect of Student-Centered Rubrics on the Quality Evaluation of a Pediatric Dentistry Course: A Pre-Post Quasi-Experiment With Independent Cohorts. Effectiveness of a Standardized Protocol in Teaching Indirect Crown Preparation for CAD/CAM Restorations. Assessment of Dental Students' Diagnostic and Management Decision-Making Skills in Temporomandibular Disorders Through Virtual Scenarios. Short-Term Survival Analysis of Resin-Composite Restorations by Dental Students Using Real-World Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1