Search

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) with traditional learning in prosthodontic education. Methods: The protocol was registered before commencement [CRD42023390277]. The search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on comparative assessment of TEL and traditional learning in prosthodontic education up to 6 June 2024. A comprehensive search strategy was formulated, encompassing multiple electronic databases. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2) were performed. Educational outcomes were evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four‐level evaluation model. Results: Of 2830 records identified, 14 RCTs were included. All the trials were judged at high risk of bias or had some concerns. The included studies assessed the short‐term benefits of various TEL approaches, including e‐learning, blended learning, video demonstration specialized self‐evaluation software and virtual reality simulation in prosthodontic education for undergraduates. Promising results were found in individual studies, particularly in terms of perceived learning conditions with problem‐based learning (PBL) and self‐reported understanding and confidence when using video demonstrations. Most studies reported comparable outcomes to traditional learning in practical skills assessments, while the results regarding the acquisition of theoretical knowledge through the incorporation of TEL approaches were contradictory. One study reported promising results in perceived learning conditions with the PBL approach, as well as improved self‐reported understanding and confidence with the use of video demonstrations. Furthermore, there was a limited number of studies assessing the effect of TEL approaches on students' behaviour. Conclusion: There is a lack of high‐quality evidence to support the adoption of TEL approaches in prosthodontics. However, the incorporation of virtual reality simulation has demonstrated promising results, particularly in improving practical clinical skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To systematically assess the efficacy of the various interventions used to intrude maxillary molars. Furthermore, to evaluate associated root resorption, stability of intrusion, subsequent vertical movement of mandibular molars, cost effectiveness, compliance, patient reported outcomes and adverse events. Methods: A pre-registered and comprehensive literature search of published and unpublished trials until March 22nd 2023 with no language restriction applied in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, DOSS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus, Dissertation and Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Trip (PROSPERO: CRD42022310562). Randomized controlled trials involving a comparative assessment of treatment modalities used to intrude maxillary molars were included. Pre-piloted data extraction forms were used. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for risk of bias assessment, and The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used for certainty of evidence appraisal. Results: A total of 3986 records were identified through the electronic data search, of which 24 reports were sought for retrieval. Of these, 7 trials were included. One trial was judged at high risk of bias, while the others had some concerns. Based on individual small sample studies, maxillary molar intrusion was achieved using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and rapid molar intruder appliance (RMI). It was also observed to a lesser extent with the use of open bite bionator (OBB) and posterior bite blocks. The molar intruder appliance and the posterior bite blocks (spring-loaded or magnetic) also intruded the lower molars. Root resorption was reported in two studies involving TADs. None of the identified studies involved a comparison of conventional and TAD-based treatments for intrusion of molars. No studies reported outcomes concerning stability, cost-effectiveness, compliance and patient-reported outcomes. Insufficient homogeneity between the included trials precluded quantitative synthesis. The level of evidence was very low. Conclusions: Maxillary molar intrusion can be attained with different appliances (removable and fixed) and with the use of temporary anchorage devices. Posterior bite blocks (spring-loaded or magnetic) and the RMI offer the additional advantage of intruding the mandibular molars. However, stability of the achieved maxillary molar intrusion long term is unclear. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The 'My Retainers' mobile application is a patient-informed intervention designed to enhance removable retainer wear and associated patient experiences during the retention phase. Objectives To evaluate the effect of receiving the 'My Retainers' application on objectively assessed thermoplastic retainer (TPR) wear time, stability, periodontal outcomes, patient experiences, and knowledge related to retainers. Materials and methods Eighty-four participants planned for removable retention with TPRs were assigned either to receive the 'My Retainers' application or to control not receiving electronic reminders during the 3-month period. Randomization was based on computer-generated random numbers and allocation was concealed using opaque, sealed envelopes. The primary outcome was objectively assessed retainer wear recorded using an embedded TheraMon® micro-electronic sensor. Secondary outcomes, including irregularity of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, plaque levels, bleeding on probing and probing depth, were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up; and analysed using a series of mixed models. Experiences and knowledge related to orthodontic retainers were recorded using questionnaires. The outcome assessor was blinded when possible. Results Receipt of the mobile application resulted in slightly higher median wear time (0.91 hours/day); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.19, 4.01). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups in terms of stability (P = 0.92; 95% CI: −0.03, 0.04), plaque levels (P = 0.44; 95% CI: −0.07, 0.03), bleeding on probing (P = 0.61; 95% CI: −0.05, 0.03) and probing depth (P = 0.79; 95% CI: −0.09, 0.07). Furthermore, similar levels of patient experiences (P = 0.94) and knowledge related to retainers (P = 0.26) were found. However, marginally better levels of knowledge were identified in the intervention group. No harms were observed. Limitations A relatively short follow-up period with the study confined to a single-center in a university-based hospital. Conclusions Provision of the bespoke 'My Retainers' application did not lead to an improvement in adherence with TPR wear over a 3-month follow-up period. Further refinement and research are required to develop and investigate means of enhancing adherence levels. Clinical registration NCT03224481. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]