Purpose/Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in students’ preferences between soap carving (SC) and digital sculpting (DS) methods after obtaining tooth with both methods, their opinions about the methods and their performance in the dental anatomy course. Materials and Methods The SC and DS methods were demonstrated. Students were asked to obtain a maxillary central incisor by both methods and to record time. Students’ preferences were asked both before and after applying both methods. The level of significance for statistical analysis was set at p ≤ .05. Results Forty first year preclinical students (24 female, 16 male) participated in this study. Their mean age was 19.38 years ±1.00 year. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean time of the DS method according to gender (p = .004) and the mean time of DS and SC methods for females (p = .015). There was also a statistically significant difference between preferences of students for “In the future while treating the patient in the clinic, I learned with ………… method in the preclinic will be more useful for me.” statement, before and after applying both methods (p = .034). Conclusions The obtaining the tooth of the students with DS method were longer than with SC method (especially in the females). After applying both methods, the students changed their minds that learning the information about the SC and DS methods would have a similar effect when treating patients in the clinic.

A BSTRACT Aims and Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare digital and conventional impression methods by preclinical students in terms of time and ease and to evaluate their preferences and future expectations. Materials and Methods: Twenty volunteered, 2 nd year preclinical students (11 females and 9 males) participated in this study. Students took digital and conventional impressions of the left lower first molar which was made full ceramic crown preparation and opposite full arch from a typodont model (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany). They used intraoral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona Dental GmbH, Bensheim, Germany) for digital impression and also used additional type (Express XT Penta H, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and condensation type (Zetaplus, Zhermack SpA, Badia Polesine, Italy) silicones for conventional impression. Their taking impression time was measured. Before taking impression and after taking impression, two kinds of questionnaires were conducted to students about their preference, ease of impression methods, and their future expectations. Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS 23 and Excel 2010 version. Differences between conventional and digital impression in terms of time were analyzed by student’s-t paired test and effect of gender was analyzed by students’s-t independent test. Results: There were statistically significant differences between digital and conventional impression methods in terms of taking impression and total impression time ( P < 0.001). But there wasn’t any statistically significant difference between two methods in terms of preparation time. About 85% of students preferred the digital impression method and also 85% of students found that the digital impression method was easy. 95% of students expected to find intraoral scanner in the clinic where working first time. Conclusions: As a result of this study, it has been seen that the students preferred the digital impression method to the conventional impression method and found that the digital impression method was easier.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the method of education has changed in dental education as in all other schools. The purpose of this study is to evaluate live-video demonstrations and video demonstrations in the dental anatomy and morphology course in terms of students' learning preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic process. Material and Methods: The upper right canine tooth was carved from soap with a live-video demonstration in the preclinical laboratory the week before distance education started. After the distance education started, a video demonstration was prepared for the carving of the lower canine tooth from soap and sent to students via e-mail. The students who watched both demonstrations were asked to carve these teeth from soap. A survey was conducted via Google Forms to get students' opinions about the demonstration types and distance education by asking 11 Likert-type questions. The level of significance for statistical analysis was set at p<0.05. Results: 51 first year preclinical students (31 female, 20 male) participated to this study. The mean age of students was 19.43 ± 1.01 years old. There was no statistically significant difference between the demonstration types in terms of students' learning preferences, the type of device used by students for distance learning and the selection of the demonstration type. Conclusion:Although there was no difference between the types of demonstration in terms of students' learning preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic, students mostly preferred the video demonstrations if they are in the same environment with the instructor periodically.