Affiliations: [a] Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College & Hospital, Nagpur, India | [b] Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, India | [c] Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [d] Department of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Catania University, Catania, Italy | [e] Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India | [f] Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Ganesh Ranganath Jadhav, Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, India. E-mail: drganesh11@aiimsnagpur.edu.in.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Dental education is considered as a complex, challenging and often stressful educational procedure. Acquisition of psychomotor skills by undergraduate students is an important step in many health professions to become a successful professional. During under graduation, class II cavity preparation exercise is of utmost important in dentistry. OBJECTIVE: To compare class II cavities prepared by students after hands-on live demonstration and pre-recorded video demonstration using well-organised evaluation rubrics. METHOD: Preclinical dental students (n= 50) were divided into two groups. The students in group I (n= 25) attended a hands-on live demonstration performed by one faculty while students in group II (n= 25) watched a 15-minute pre-recorded procedural video on the projector. Both groups were appealed to prepare class II cavity for amalgam involving disto-occlusal surface of mandibular second molar articulated on jaw model (TRU LON study model, Jayna industries, Ghaziabad U.P., India). Following completion of the preparations, all teeth were collected, and labelled grades of prepared cavities were given according to prespecified rubrics. The data of scores were presented as means and standard deviation. Statistical analysis of data was executed using SPSS software. A paired t-test was used to compare scores between groups. RESULTS: The study shows that the video-supported demonstration of a cavity preparation was better than the live hands-on demonstration. A higher mean response for the procedural video group was found compared to the live demonstration group (p= 0.000133). CONCLUSION: Pre-recorded video-supported demonstration along with guidance by a tutor may be a viable alternative to hands-on live demonstration in cavity preparation procedures during undergraduate dental training. Moreover, rubric methods can be implemented in the teaching of various preclinical exercises for conservative dentistry and endodontics.
