Page 31 - Demo

Teaching method influenced root filling quality?292Quality of root fillingsOf the root fillings made by students who attended the former programme, 47% (seven of 15) were of good quality. Of those made by students who attended the revised programme, 62% (47 of 76) were of good quality. Using Pearson Chi--Square analysis no statistically significant difference in quality of root fillings was observed for the two types of programmes (P=.274). Of the less complex root canal treatments, a statistically significantly better quality of root fillings was observed if the student was supervised by an endodontist (88% good quality) than if they were supervised by a general dental practitioner (59% good quality) (P=.045). However, of the complex root canal treatments, no statistically significant difference in quality of root fillings was found for the two types of supervision (P=.825; Table 4).Table 4. Distribution of the data according to the quality of root fillings of the first root canal treatment students performed, on a patient, following succeeding in the summative assessment, the type of supervision during this treatment and the difficulty level of the treatment. Using Pearson Chi-Square analysis, for the less complex treatments a statistically significantly better quality of root fillings was observed if the student was supervised by an endodontist than by a general dental practitioner. However, no statistically significantly difference in quality of root fillings of the complex treatments was found for the two types of supervision.Poor quality root fillingsN (%)Good qualityroot fillingsN (%)Less complex treatments Endodontist 2 (13) 14 (88) P=.045General dental practitioner 15 (41) 22 (59)Complex treatments Endodontist 6 (50) 6 (50) P=.825General dental practitioner 14 (54) 12 (46)Number of periapical radiographsThe type of programme (former or revised) did not influence the number of periapical radiographs taken or the number of periapical radiographs that failed. Using Mann-Whitney U analysis no statistically significant differences were found (respectively P=.940 and P=.091). Neither did the type of supervision (endodontist or general dental practitioner) influence the number of periapical radiographs taken or failed (respectively, P=.092 and P=.452; Table 5). However, using Kruskal--Wallis and as a post hoc test Mann-Whitney U analysis, statistically significantly more periapical radiographs failed in the molar teeth than in the front teeth (respectively, P=.016 and P=.003; Table 6).Annemarie Baaij.indd 29 28-06-2023 12:26