No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Education in the health sciences has been undergoing profound changes due to the incorporation of information and communication technologies. Students learn through a variety of approaches, according to their learning styles. Blended learning, which combines technology-aided learning (e-learning) with traditional face-to-face teaching methods, has been found to improve learning outcomes. Objective The aims of the present study were to evaluate the learning styles of undergraduate dental students and their experience towards the use of e-learning. Material and method Two electronic questionnaires were sent to 174 students. The learning styles were determined by the Felder & Soloman Index (ILS), which evaluates the following four dimensions of learning: processing information (active-reflexive); perceiving information (sensorial-intuitive); receiving information (visual-verbal); and understanding information (sequential-global). To determine the e-learning experience we used four questions (Likert scale – five-point) which addressed the experience and the use of information and communication technologies. Result Most students presented a well-balanced style for the active-reflective (60%) and sequential-global (68%) domains. The sensing style (64%) was predominant. A lower percentage presented a global characteristic (9%). We did not find significant differences regarding the age groups (19-21 and 22-33 years) and genders (P>0.05, χ 2). However, in terms of age the difference was significant concerning websites helping in learning (P=0.0363, Mann-Whitney). Conclusion We conclude that the students do not have the same learning styles and e-learning experience. Methods such as blended learning could provide advantages when teaching undergraduate dental students.

The present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. Teeth were assigned to four experimental groups: group 1, piezoelectric ultrasonic device; group 2, magnetostrictive ultrasonic device; group 3, hand instrumentation; and group 4, untreated teeth (control). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. The results showed that residual deposits were similar in all tested groups: piezoelectric, 8.7%; magnetostrictive, 9.7%; hand instrumentation, 11.1% and control, 76.4%. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p < 0.0001). With respect to roughness parameters evaluation, R(a) and R(z) of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern (p > 0.05), but for R(t) and R(y), a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curettes showed many instrumental scratches, deep gouges, and a relatively large amount of dentin was removed. Within the limits of the study, although the instruments produced similar results, root surfaces instrumentated with curettes were rougher and had more root surface tissue removed than with the ultrasonic device.

No abstract