Objective The purpose of this study was to determine whether basic manual dexterity (BMD) could be an important parameter in selecting students for the Degree in Dentistry (CLOPD) and to assess whether initial manual dexterity in students admitted to the CLOPD can improve with training in pre-clinical and clinical practice. Design Observational study. Setting The study was carried out at the Catholic University of Rome, in five consecutive academic years. Subjects and methods Four hundred and thirty-three subjects (262 males and 171 females) were tested (10 different exercises) in fi ve consecutive years. Two retests were performed after three and five years respectively from the beginning of the experi mentation. Main outcome measures The scores of individual exercises were averaged for each candidate, assessing the mean value of basic manual dexterity score (BMDS). Results It was possible to observe some differences among candi dates coming from different types of high schools, since those having a prior university degree or a scientific high school degree proved better than those with classical or vocational high school qualifications (p < 0.05). A statistically signifi cant improvement of BMDS has been observed in students who attended the CLOPD for at least 32 months. Conclusions Data obtained revealed that basic manual dexterity is not essential in the selection of dental students. Students who could fol low training significantly improved in their manual ability.

In the last years, the use of tests with predictive value for scholastic progress has become widespread. While there is an aptitude test already in use for admission to our Dental School, we have also been conducting, without consequence to their admission, an investigation into the manual dexterity of candidate students. The aim of this test is to investigate basic manual dexterity, not ability following exercise. As previous, no such specific test had been formulated; the choice of test criteria we made was new. The tests investigated over five consecutive Academic years the ability to discern characteristics of a surface, to distinguish between different types of consistency, hand–eye co‐ordination, the graphic activities, laterality and muscular strength. A re‐test for some years was conducted afterwards. The results provided an overall evaluation: insufficient; sufficient; good; very good; excellent. Students who came from non‐technical high schools showed a good comprehension of questions put to them, use of strategy, description of procedures; and final checking but a certain clumsiness in the hand–eye co‐ordination test and a tendency to use one hand only. Students coming from technical high schools showed a less immediate grasp of questions put to them, sometimes requiring their repetition, disorganised behaviour in blind‐fold tests, insufficient use of strategies and little checking but notable ability in hand–eye co‐ordination tests and dextrous simultaneous use of both hands. These results were then correlated with the result of the aptitude test. In conclusion, a notable correspondence between student selection based on the aptitude test and the experimental manual dexterity test was verified. This correspondence outlines that manual dexterity is not only a ‘manual’ but a ‘mental’ ability.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract