Preclinical teaching of periodontal surgical concepts using common instructional models: A comparative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Some commonly used models utilized for teaching periodontal surgical techniques to dental students include pig mandible and periodontal typodonts. Currently, no study compares the learning and teaching outcomes following the use of one model to the other. This study is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the preclinical laboratory component on student understanding of concepts taught in the periodontal surgical course and assessing students' and faculty members' satisfaction with the instructional models. METHODS: As part of the surgical periodontics course, 98 students took the final exam, with eighty students participating in only the pig mandible session and twenty-three students participating in both the pig jaw mandible and an additional session utilizing periodontal typodonts under the supervision of ten periodontal faculty members. Examination scores of students attending or not attending the laboratory session were analyzed by a two-sample t-test. A questionnaire evaluating the effectiveness of both models was given to faculty members and students who participated in both laboratory sessions. These results were analyzed by paired t-test. RESULTS: Participation in the laboratory sessions did not significantly impact the final exam scores (p = 0.722). Students who had better didactic performance in the course performed better in the final exam, irrespective of laboratory participation. Both students and faculty members preferred typodont to the pig mandibles in learning or teaching periodontal surgical concepts, but both felt gaining flap management and flap refection experience to be better with the pig mandible model without statistical significance (p = 0.119 and p = 0.070, respectively). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that laboratory sessions did not significantly improve student performance on the exam. Students and faculty members generally gave positive feedback on both instructional models. Periodontal typodont could be an alternative model for teaching dental students, periodontal surgical concepts.

Volumetric assessment of changes in the alveolar ridge dimension following guided bone regeneration using a combination freeze-dried bone allograft with collagen membrane or novel resorbable scaffold: A prospective two-center clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine osseous changes following lateral bone augmentation using a novel scaffold (OV) alone and compare it to combination therapy using freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and resorbable collagen membrane (FDBA/CM). METHODS: Thirty patients completed this 9-months prospective two-center cohort clinical trial. Before surgery and 9-months re-entry, linear measurements were performed, and impressions taken. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were done at baseline and 9 months. DICOM slice data were converted into volumetric images using 3D Slicer. Following 3D volumetric image construction, pre- and post-op Standard Triangle Language files were superimposed and volumetric data were extracted for a 10-mm region of interest. Linear measurements were compared similarly. RESULTS: Baseline clinical parameters were similar in both groups (4.22 and 4.53 mm for OV and FDBA/CM at -2 mm, respectively). Following treatment, vertical distance from the stent had changed minimally (-0.36 and -0.12 mm, respectively). Similarly, lateral bone gain ranged from 0 to 0.4 mm, for both groups. To the contrary, the CBCT measurements showed a significantly greater increase in horizontal width in the control at -2 mm (0.95 ± 0.2 mm) compared with -0.62 mm for the OV (P = 0.000). Similar changes were observed at -5 mm (0.63 and -0.41 mm, respectively, P = 0.01). Sites volume had increased from 266 ± 149 mm3 to 360 ± 138 mm3 (P = 0.001) for FDBA/CM with negligible changes for OV (from 334 to 335 mm3 , P = 0.952). these between-group changes being statistically significant (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: FDBA/CM yielded better albeit moderate increase in the volume of the edentulous ridge, while OV scaffolds failed to produce similar results.