No abstract

The aim of this study was to review the effectiveness of methods used for teaching dental anatomy carving to dental students in operative dentistry as evaluated in published studies. This systematic review is described in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature search of research published from January 1945 until May 2014. Seven databases were screened: MedLine (PubMed), Lilacs, IBECS, Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and The Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, only studies using dental carving to assess the practical knowledge of anatomy were selected. The tabulated data were organized by title of article, names of authors, number of students assessed, assessment method, material used, groups tested, main results, and conclusions. The methodology quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Initially, 2,258 studies were identiied in all databases. Five articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. According to these studies, the geometric method, teaching step-bystep along with the teacher, and adjuvant methods such as the use of tutors and teaching through digital media with DVDs proved to be effective in improving learning. There is no standard technique that is widely accepted for the teaching of dental carving, nor is there an appropriately validated method of evaluation to verify whether the teaching methods used are effective for the acquisition of skills and expertise in dental anatomy by students.

Knowledge of dental anatomy is of great importance in the practice of dentistry, especially in oral rehabilitation, because without this knowledge, professional practice is not possible. Dental carving plays a major role in training dental students as it develops their manual dexterity. This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the influence of didactic-theoretical reinforcement on the theoretical and practical knowledge of dental anatomy of preclinical students by examining the quality of the anatomical restorations performed by these students before and after a didactic-theoretical reinforcement. For the evaluation of theoretical knowledge, a questionnaire with closed questions about dental anatomy was used. To evaluate the effect of didactic reinforcement on dental carvings, two groups of 15 preclinical students were assessed. Experimental group (G1) received a three-hour theoretical tutoring on dental anatomy, while the control group (G2) did not. The dental carving scores obtained by the two different groups were compared using Student's t-test. Cohen's d was used to estimate the effect sizes between groups. The frequency of correct answers given for each theoretical knowledge question was compared in each group using Fisher's exact test. T-test was also used to compare the means of the two groups' final scores of theoretical evaluations. To compare these final scores obtained in both carving and theoretical tests, a principal component analysis was performed with different items assessed in each test to obtain factor loading scores and a final weighted score, where factor loadings were considered for each item. Weighted scores were compared using t-test. Also, scores obtained during the head and neck course were assessed and compared using t-test. Spearman's correlation test was used to assess the correlation between scores obtained prior to the anatomy course and scores obtained in the dental carving exercise. The theoretical evaluation revealed no significant difference between the grades (mean ± SD) of G1 (85.1 ± 6.6%) and G2 (86.2 ± 9.1%) with the grades of a baseline test that was previously obtained when students submitted to the study (P = 0.725). Regarding the tooth carving assessment, the dental carving quality by students of G1 has significantly improved, except for tooth #23 (P = 0.096). Theoretical reinforcement of dental anatomy seems to improve the students' carving performance but does not enhance their knowledge about dental anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 11: 377-384. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

No abstract

No abstract