Search

Patient‐dentist discourse is a core nonoperational competency in dental education. The skills of querying patients and responding to questions are noncognitive attributes, and their evaluation by the standardized patient objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is particularly necessary. However, it is not clear whether students' test anxiety affects these attributes. This study aims to examine the relationship between dental students' state‐trait anxiety, noncognitive performance, and examination results during their first OSCE. A single dental school cohort (n = 226) of 5 year students attending their first clinical examination from 2014 to 2017 was studied. Participants completed the Chinese Mandarin Version State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory Y form before taking the OSCE. The difference between state and trait anxiety levels was compared by paired t test. Gender differences and the effect of age group in these anxiety levels were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. Moreover, gender, age group, state anxiety, and trait anxiety scores were compared with the OSCE items of noncognitive performance using a chi‐square test. Students showed significantly higher state anxiety than trait anxiety levels; moreover, women showed significantly higher state anxiety than men. Furthermore, gender, age group, state anxiety, and trait anxiety had no association with the noncognitive performance examination results. Most participants showed moderate state and trait anxiety levels during their first OSCE. Further, the state‐trait anxiety had no significant effect on their noncognitive performance. However, 26.5% of participants did not pass the examination; therefore, dental educators should increase communication skill training courses during clerkship training to improve students' noncognitive attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sleep‐related breathing disorders are complex problems that decrease quality of life and increase morbidity and mortality in patients. Comprehensive evaluation is essential for selecting and planning obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatments. However, the many proposed OSA treatments are rarely compared in the literature. The literature on OSA consists largely of case series studies, and the paucity of controlled studies makes comparisons of OSA treatments difficult. This article provides a brief overview of the most common OSA interventions. Because of the controversies and unanswered questions about OSA treatments, further studies are needed to define what treatments are best for specific OSA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to compare the insertion torque (IT), resonance frequency (RF), and removal torque (RT) among three microimplant brands. Thirty microimplants of the three brands were used as follows: Type A (titanium alloy, 1.5-mm × 8-mm), Type B (stainless steel, 1.5-mm × 8-mm), and Type C (titanium alloy, 1.5-mm × 9-mm). A synthetic bone with a 2-mm cortical bone and bone marrow was used. Each microimplant was inserted into the synthetic bone, without predrilling, to a 7 mm depth. The IT, RF, and RT were measured in both vertical and horizontal directions. One-way analysis of variance and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient tests were used for intergroup and intragroup comparisons, respectively. In the vertical test, the ITs of Type C (7.8 Ncm) and Type B (7.5 Ncm) were significantly higher than that of Type A (4.4 Ncm). The RFs of Type C (11.5 kHz) and Type A (10.2 kHz) were significantly higher than that of Type B (7.5 kHz). Type C (7.4 Ncm) and Type B (7.3 Ncm) had significantly higher RTs than did Type A (4.1 Ncm). In the horizontal test, both the ITs and RTs were significantly higher for Type C, compared with Type A. No significant differences were found among the groups, and the study hypothesis was accepted. Type A had the lowest inner/outer diameter ratio and widest apical facing angle, engendering the lowest IT and highest RF values. However, no significant correlations in the IT, RF, and RT were observed among the three groups., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Taiwan.)