A computerised third molar surgery simulator – results of supervision by different professionals

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate which supervisory approach afforded the most efficient learning method for undergraduate students in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) using a computerised third molar surgery simulator. Fifth year dental students participated voluntarily in a randomised experimental study using the simulator. The amount of time required and the number of trials used by each student were evaluated as a measure of skills development. Students had the opportunity to practise the procedure until no further visible improvements were achieved. The study assessed four different types of supervision to guide the students. The first group was where they were supported by a teacher/specialist in OMS, the second by a teaching assistant, the third group practised without any supervision and the fourth received help from a simulator technician/engineer. A protocol describing assessment criteria was designed for this purpose, and a questionnaire was completed by all participating students after the study. The average number of attempts required to virtually remove a third molar tooth in the simulator was 1.44 times for the group supervised by an OMS teacher; 1.5 times for those supervised by a teaching assistant; 2.8 times for those who had no supervision; and 3.6 times when support was provided only by a simulator technician. The results showed that the most efficient experience of the students was when they were helped by an OMS teacher or a teaching assistant. In a time and cost-effective perspective, supervision by a teaching assistant for a third molar surgery simulator would be the optimal choice.

Biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction

“…Furthermore, biologic mesh hernia repairs may still result in wound complication rates of 40% or higher. 20,21,48 Specific patient and operative characteristics associated with higher rates of wound complications include diabetes mellitus, smoking, hernia size, and bridging technique. 48 The question still remains as to which biologic mesh minimizes complications and cost while providing strength and durability to the AWR.…”

“…20,21,48 Specific patient and operative characteristics associated with higher rates of wound complications include diabetes mellitus, smoking, hernia size, and bridging technique. 48 The question still remains as to which biologic mesh minimizes complications and cost while providing strength and durability to the AWR. Even prosthetic mesh may prove sufficient in the setting of infection if the reconstruction is delayed following successful surgical debridement.…”

“…Even prosthetic mesh may prove sufficient in the setting of infection if the reconstruction is delayed following successful surgical debridement. 22,48,49 Use of biologic mesh in AWR should be individualized to each patient, taking into account clinical characteristics, such as wound contamination and risk factors for infection, as well as the patients' desires: infected or potentially contaminated wounds can be repaired with a one-stage hernia repair and reconstruction with potential need to repair in the future, or with multistage debridement and reconstruction. Current indications for utilization of bioprosthetic mesh include complex reconstructions deemed highrisk for wound-healing problems and contaminated wounds (replacement for infected synthetic mesh).…”