Search

The Manual Dexterity Test (MDT) was originally developed in the 1940s as part of the American Dental Association's Dental Aptitude Test to assist in reducing high attrition rates in U.S. dental schools. The Perceptual Motor Ability Test (PMAT) replaced the MDT in 1972 in the U.S., but the MDT continues to be available in Canada. The MDT was originally developed to be used as a screening tool to eliminate those applicants who demonstrated poor psychomotor skills, and it was very effective in doing so. The MDT has been subsequently criticized for not being an effective predictor of performance in dental school. The aim of this study was to determine the level of correlation between MDT scores and psychomotor skills assessment scores in preclinical psychomotor skills courses in the DDS program at Dalhousie University. Three key preclinical psychomotor skills courses were identified, and their course coordinators were asked to identify students who had been accepted into the program but had extremely weak psychomotor skills. Those students' psychomotor skills scores were then compared to their MDT scores. The results showed that when the student had an MDT score of 10 or less, there was high sensitivity (though low specificity) in identifying students with extremely weak psychomotor skills. Those students with MDT scores of 11 or above were unlikely to have difficulties in psychomotor skills courses. These findings support the MDT's use as a screening tool in the admissions process and a minimum cut-off score of 11 out of 30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To measure the light energy that dental students delivered to a simulated Class I restoration before training, immediately after training and 4 months after training. Methods: Thirty-eight (38) dental students used a single light-emitting diode curing light (SmartLite iQ2, Dentsply) to cure, for 10 seconds, a simulated Class I restoration positioned in the Managing Accurate Resin Curing - Patient Simulator (BlueLight analytics inc.). The students then attended an instructional lecture and received individualized instruction on optimizing their lightcuring technique. The students were retested immediately after instruction and again 4 months later (without further instruction). The irradiance and energy delivered during light-curing were calculated for each student at all 3 time points. Mean values were calculated and compared. Results: Before instruction, the students delivered between 0.1 and 7.2 J/cm² of energy (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 4.1 ± 1.7 J/cm²). After instruction, the same students delivered between 5.8 and 7.5 J/cm² of energy (mean ± SD 6.7 ± 0.4 J/cm²). Analysis of variance and Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference tests showed that instruction with the patient simulator led to a significant improvement in the amount of energy delivered and that the students retained this information. When retested 4 months later, the students delivered between 4.2 and 7.9 J/cm² of energy (mean ± SD 6.1 ±1.1 J/cm²). Although this was less energy than immediately after instruction, the decline was not significant (p = 0.44). Conclusions: Provision of immediate feedback on light-curing technique and instruction on how to avoid mistakes led to a significant and lasting improvement in the amount of energy delivered by the students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose/Objective: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and universities transitioned to online learning. The objective of this study was to evaluate the experience of students with the online education program offered during the initial phase of the pandemic. Methods: In April 2020, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 248 undergraduate dental and dental hygiene students in Dalhousie University's faculty of dentistry. The survey contained 10 Likert-type and 3 open-ended questions asking students to evaluate their online learning experience and their preferences regarding in-person and online learning. Results: The response rate was 62.5%. Two-thirds (65.8%) of respondents reported that their educational experience in a virtual setting was very or somewhat positive, while only 14.8% said it was negative or somewhat negative. However, 60.6% agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred face-to-face learning over virtual classroom learning. Students were evenly split on whether online teaching should replace classroom teaching where possible (38.1% agreed/strongly agreed, 39.3% disagreed/strongly disagreed). Analysis of the responses to open-ended questions gave rise to 6 themes: online teaching and assessment methods; helpful online instructor behaviours/traits; advantages of online learning; disadvantages of online learning; combining online and in-person learning; online learning during the pandemic. Conclusions: Although the sudden transition to online learning was generally well received by students, there still appears to be support for maintaining some form of traditional, face-to-face learning methods in dental education. Students felt that ensuring faculty were creative, understanding and flexible was paramount in the transition to teaching in an online format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]