Journal of Dental Education最新文献

Purpose/objective: The prevalence of food insecurity (FI) on university campuses is increasing. This study explored the prevalence of food and nutrition insecurity (NI) among dental students and barriers and interventions to address them.

Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted. Validated tools were used to assess FI and NI. Univariate binary logistic regressions and a multivariable logistic regression model identified factors independently associated with FI.

Results: The response rate was 11.9% (n = 67). The mean age was 28.4 years; 67% were D1/D2 students; 53.7% were female, 15.2% identified as Hispanic, and 50.7% as White. Forty percent experienced FI; 24.2% had low nutrition security (NS), and 26.9% reported partial or full responsibility for others' living expenses. Twenty-four percent were married, 25.8% used a food pantry; 11.1% had unsuccessfully applied for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. In the adjusted model, low NS, nonmarried status, and food pantry use increased the likelihood of FI (odds ratios of 16.854, 10.182, and 9.123, respectively). Common barriers and potential interventions to address FI and NI were explored.

Conclusions: The prevalence of FI in this sample was greater than the national average. Those who were unmarried, had low NS, and used a food pantry were significantly more likely to have FI. Proposed interventions include student services enhancements and curriculum modifications on nutrition and wellness. Further research is necessary with a larger sample to understand factors contributing to NI and FI among dental students.

Background: Needlestick exposures commonly occur with non-disposable metal syringes during the assembly and disassembly of needles due to the manual handling of needles. Disposable syringes are designed to reduce these exposures by using a protective sheath thus eliminating the need to handle needles while uncapping and recapping them.

Purpose: This pilot study compared the two syringes with two alternating groups of third-year (D3) students during clinical practice under faculty supervision to administer local anesthesia to live patients.

Methods: In 2023, two groups of Year 3 (D3) Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) students supervised by faculty in each group alternated over two 4-week sessions using disposable (N = 67) and non-disposable (N = 66) syringes to administer local anesthesia injections to live patients. At the end of each session, each group and supervising faculty completed a survey to capture their experience.

Results: While two participants reported needlestick injuries using non-disposable syringes and no injuries incurred using disposable syringes, we found neither a statistically significant increase nor decrease in exposures related to needlesticks using either syringe. Statistically significant outcomes showed that the participants found the non-disposable easier to use and they were more likely to use it going forward than the disposable syringe. Participants preferred using the non-disposable syringe mainly because of the stability and familiarity aspects of prior education. The disposable syringe, while easier and safer to assemble and disassemble, felt less stable to use during the injection procedure, especially during aspiration.

Conclusion: While safety continues to be a concern, students and faculty prefer non-disposable metal syringes over disposable syringes. Most dissatisfaction with using the disposable syringe came from the aspiration system. But prior experience and comfort using non-disposable metal syringes, a lack of experience and confidence with local anesthesia procedures and a lack of experience with disposable syringes, may have contributed to these outcomes. Despite usability issues with the disposable syringe, performance was more impacted by lack of experience than the type of syringe used. Introducing both syringes early into the curriculum may help overcome usability factors, further reduce needlestick exposures, and prepare students for different workplace environments. Providing adequate training for faculty, especially on the differences between the two syringes, such as aspiration, will help alleviate discomfort and better promote the use of both.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate dental students' competencies and self-confidence in performing common oral surgical procedures. It further aimed to assess potential correlations among levels of competence and confidence with student gender.

Methods: Final-year undergraduate students from Mosul Dental School in Iraq were enrolled in a summative Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to assess their competence in core skills and knowledge in oral surgery (OS). The students were also invited to participate in the ABAOMS self-assessment questionnaire to assess self-perceived confidence in performing OS procedures. Gender correlation with competence and confidence was computed via the Pearson Chi-square test (p ≤ 0.05).

Results: A total of 272 students were evaluated for OS competence. Students' highest competence was in dental anatomy (91.1%), while history-taking and tooth extraction scored the highest failure levels (56.1%) and (39.1%), respectively. For self-confidence, students felt adequately prepared to carry out several clinical procedures although they indicated low confidence in performing minimally practiced procedures. No significant correlation was detected in the total confidence versus competence except for the management of post-extraction complications. Results also showed no significant correlation between students' competence-confidence-gender; except for the administration of local anesthesia among females (p-value 0.007 ≤0.01).

Conclusion: The findings of this study show that the competence and self-perceived confidence of final-year students were generally satisfactory for a range of clinical and affective skills. However, several areas of weakness were identified which underscore the need for modification of the current curriculum to improve the preparedness of undergraduate dental students as safe beginners in OS.

Background: This cross-sectional study investigated gender differences in barriers to career development among dental researchers and between academic and non-academic women.

Methods: An anonymous 34-item survey assessing barriers to career development and workplace obstacles (14 items), along with demographic/occupation characteristics (22 items), was distributed among dental researchers at the Women In Science Network meetings at 2024 AADOCR/IADR General Session (QR code) and through AADOCR/IADR discussion board (online platform). Differences in barriers and workplace obstacles were analyzed between women and men with chi-square tests; comparisons were repeated among women working within versus outside academia.

Results: A total of 233 participants completed the survey (68.7% women, 45.3% White, two-thirds working in the United States, 62% in academia). Compared to men, women more frequently reported feeling less supported by leadership (p = 0.039), taking career breaks (p = 0.004), and experiencing bullying/harassment (41.3% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.003), microaggression (55.6% vs. 33.9%; p = 0.001), and gender bias (46.9% vs. 14.5%; p < 0.001) in their workplace, particularly between ages 36 and 65. While work-life balance issues (62.8%) and stress (59.6%) were reported by both, women reported a lack of financial (p = 0.004), administrative (p = 0.045), and mentoring (p = 0.014) support more often than men. Limited to women, those in academia reported more episodes of bullying/harassment (47.9% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.016), microaggression (67.5% vs. 23.3%; p < 0.001), and gender bias (56.4% vs. 20.9%; p < 0.001) than those outside academia, especially between ages 51 and 65. Compared to non-academic women, those in academia faced more unsatisfactory leadership decisions (p = 0.003), financial (p = 0.006), administrative (p = 0.046), and mentoring (p = 0.007) support.

Conclusions: Women in dental research encounter significantly more barriers to development and workplace obstacles than men and non-academic women.