File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1186/s12909-021-02894-3
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85115255526
- PMID: 34551730
- WOS: WOS:000698399000003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Dental students’ preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making
Title | Dental students’ preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Continuing Dental Impression Technique Digital Technology Education Dental, Graduate |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Publisher | BioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmededuc/ |
Citation | BMC Medical Education, 2021, v. 21 n. 1, p. article no. 501 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background:
To investigate the preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making among dental students.
Methods:
Final-year dental students from the 2019 and 2020 cohorts were invited to complete an online questionnaire via Google-Form. Their preference on the intraoral-scanning/impression making techniques and their perception on these techniques including the ease of defect identification, ease of infection control, need of chairside support, ease to master the technique as a beginner, efficiency in their hands and ease to handle the scanner software (yes/no) were collected. The results were analysed using McNemar tests and binary logistic regression test. All tests were performed at significance level α = 0.05.
Results:
Ninety-seven students participated in this study with a response rate of 96.0 %. Eighty-one students (83.5 %) have tried intraoral scanning on peers. Fifty-three (54.6 %) students preferred intraoral-scanning and were categorized as Pro-scanning group. Forty-four (45.4 %) students either preferred impression-making (n = 21) or not sure (n = 23) were categorized as Others. More than half of students in both groups felt that intraoral-scanning is easier to identify defect, easier in infection control and require less chairside support. Higher proportion of students in the Pro-scanning group felt that intraoral-scanning requires less chairside support, easier to master as a beginner, more efficient in their hands and they can deal well with the scanner software than that in Others (P < 0.05). Regression shown that students preferred a technique that they perceived is more efficient (P = 0.000).
Conclusions:
While intraoral scanning has perceived advantages, many students still prefer impression making that works more efficient to them. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/304640 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 2.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.935 |
PubMed Central ID | |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Lam, WYH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mak, KCK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Maghami, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Molinero-Mourelle, P | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-10-05T02:33:03Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-10-05T02:33:03Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | BMC Medical Education, 2021, v. 21 n. 1, p. article no. 501 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1472-6920 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/304640 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: To investigate the preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making among dental students. Methods: Final-year dental students from the 2019 and 2020 cohorts were invited to complete an online questionnaire via Google-Form. Their preference on the intraoral-scanning/impression making techniques and their perception on these techniques including the ease of defect identification, ease of infection control, need of chairside support, ease to master the technique as a beginner, efficiency in their hands and ease to handle the scanner software (yes/no) were collected. The results were analysed using McNemar tests and binary logistic regression test. All tests were performed at significance level α = 0.05. Results: Ninety-seven students participated in this study with a response rate of 96.0 %. Eighty-one students (83.5 %) have tried intraoral scanning on peers. Fifty-three (54.6 %) students preferred intraoral-scanning and were categorized as Pro-scanning group. Forty-four (45.4 %) students either preferred impression-making (n = 21) or not sure (n = 23) were categorized as Others. More than half of students in both groups felt that intraoral-scanning is easier to identify defect, easier in infection control and require less chairside support. Higher proportion of students in the Pro-scanning group felt that intraoral-scanning requires less chairside support, easier to master as a beginner, more efficient in their hands and they can deal well with the scanner software than that in Others (P < 0.05). Regression shown that students preferred a technique that they perceived is more efficient (P = 0.000). Conclusions: While intraoral scanning has perceived advantages, many students still prefer impression making that works more efficient to them. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmededuc/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | BMC Medical Education | - |
dc.rights | BMC Medical Education. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd. | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Continuing | - |
dc.subject | Dental Impression Technique | - |
dc.subject | Digital Technology | - |
dc.subject | Education | - |
dc.subject | Dental, Graduate | - |
dc.title | Dental students’ preference and perception on intraoral scanning and impression making | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Lam, WYH: retlaw@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Lam, WYH=rp02183 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s12909-021-02894-3 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 34551730 | - |
dc.identifier.pmcid | PMC8456611 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85115255526 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 326107 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 21 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | article no. 501 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | article no. 501 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000698399000003 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |