Page 32 - Demo

Chapter 230Table 5. The number of periapical radiographs taken by the student for their first root canal treatment, on a patient, following succeeding in the summative assessment. Using Mann-Whitney U analysis no statistically significantly influence on the number of exposed or failed periapical radiographs was observed for the type of supervision or the type of programme.Total periapical radiographsMean ± SDFailed periapical radiographsMean ± SDGeneral dental practitioner 8.1 ± 3.6 P=.092 3.1 ± 3.1 P=.452Endodontist 8.7 ± 2.6 3.3 ± 2.5Former programme 8.0 ± 2.2 P=.940 2.0 ± 2.0 P=.091Revised programme 8.3 ± 3.5 3.4 ± 3.0Table 6. The number of periapical radiographs taken by the student for their first root canal treatment, on a patient, following succeeding in the summative assessment. Between the types of teeth, using KruskalWallis analysis, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of exposed periapical radiographs (P=.073). However, a statistically significant difference was found in the number of periapical radiographs that failed (P=.016). Using as a post hoc test Mann-Whitney U analysis, a statistically significant difference was found between front teeth and molars (P=.003), but, no difference was found between front teeth and premolars (P=.067) nor between premolars and molars (P=.313). The values with the same superscript characters were not statistically significantly different (comparison within the same column).Total periapical radiographsMean ± SDFailed periapical radiographsMean ± SDFront tooth 6.8 ± 2.0a 1.6 ± 1.6bPremolar 8.1 ± 2.8a 3.0 ± 2.5b,cMolar 9.1 ± 4.0a 3.9 ± 3.4cTotal 8.3 ± 3.3 3.1 ± 2.9DiscussionThe total number of available students (cohort) for this study was limited. As an alternative to increase the sample size, we could have taken a cohort from before the changes and another one after completing the implementation of the revised undergraduate clinical endodontic programme. However, some other protocols have been changed at the same time as the implementation of the revised clinical endodontic programme. Amongst others, theoretical tutorials and a new rotary root canal preparation system were introduced. Inclusion of these new variables would have biased the results. To limit the number of confounding factors, this smaller but more standardised sample was chosen. Even with this rather small sample size, statistically significant differences were found. However, regarding that the material in this study was underpowered, one cannot overrule Annemarie Baaij.indd 30 28-06-2023 12:26