Observation of the marks recorded with the thicker occlusal indicator demonstrated both a greater number marks and a larger size to the marks when compared to the thinner Accufilm, p < or = 0.02-0.0001. However, there was no significant increase in the number or size of the marks with an increased load for either material.

The purpose of this article is to describe and examine the effectiveness of a mentoring program for third and fourth year clinical dental students. This is an educational intervention for the pre-doctoral students at the Schulich School of Dentistry. We have recently instituted this program and have developed a questionnaire to assess the student perspectives using a SWOT analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of this intervention by analyzing the quantitative and qualitative responses of the students towards their clinical education and patient management. Our findings, both quantitative and qualitative, indicated that the mentoring program was well received by most students who would like to see the program expanded. The majority of students felt that the mentoring program aligned well with comprehensive care of their patients while enhancing their clinical experience. One of the strongest areas of agreement involved the ability to discuss cases in a non-threatening environment. The SWOT analysis identified key areas for future improvements. We offer steps to successfully implement a similar program based on our findings. It is our hope that our results might be instrumental for other schools wishing to adopt a similar model which supports patient-based comprehensive care.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate dental students' performance when fabricating a mandibular two-implant overdenture (OD) as compared to conventional dentures (CD) and to determine if these prostheses were successful. Twenty students and twenty patients were divided into two groups: complete denture group (CDG) and maxillary denture and two-implant OD group (ODG). Students' progress was evaluated at each appointment as they were given a clinical assessment score (CAS), which varied from 1 (unacceptable, needs to repeat procedure) to 4 (acceptable, no errors). The success of the prosthesis was evaluated by the patients using a visual analog scale (VAS) and an expert (a prosthodontist) using a denture quality assessment (DQA) form. Performance for both groups was not statistically different across all eight appointments (CDG 3.16 versus ODG 3.25; p=0.46). Patients with ODs reported greater stability with their dentures (p=0.048) and greater ability to chew than patients with CDs (p=0.03). There were no differences between the groups in terms of expert appraisal (ODG 71.1 versus CDG 67.5; p=0.59). The performance of dental students when fabricating a two-implant OD is thus not different from that of a CD. Students can successfully fabricate a two-implant OD as perceived by both patients and prosthodontists.

No abstract

No abstract