Educational and Clinical Experiences in Administering Local Anesthesia: a study of dental and dental hygiene students in California.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in educational preparation and practical educational experiences between dental and dental hygiene students in the administration of local anesthesia (LA) and management of LA related complications in the state of California.Methods: Course instructors responsible for teaching LA or the program directors of the 6 dental schools and 29 dental hygiene programs in California (n=35) were invited to participate in this study. A computer-based descriptive survey, a comparative checklist of LA instruction requirements and semi-structured interviews were used for the data collection. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results.Results: Eighteen LA course instructors or program directors participated in the study for a response rate of 51%. One respondent was from a dental school while 17 were from dental hygiene programs. The majority of the dental hygiene (n=16) respondents reported teaching 12 types of intraoral injections; the dental school respondent reported teaching seven injection types. Fewer student-to-student injection experiences per injection type were required by the dental school (n=7) than the dental hygiene schools (n=12) and the dental school did not indicate a minimum number of student-to-patient injection requirements for graduation. Analysis of a checklist of required elements of LA instruction and individual syllabi revealed common elements of all courses; students are expected to choose the proper local anesthetic, identify the proper injection type, and manage any LA complications. The majority of the interview participants perceived that dental hygiene students had more educational preparation in LA than their dental student cohorts and that dental hygienists were educationally prepared to administer LA safely without direct supervision.Conclusions: Dental hygiene students in California programs appear to be well prepared through their education experiences to administer and manage complications related to local anesthesia. Consideration should be given to supporting changing the supervision requirements for the administration of local anesthesia by dental hygienists licensed in the state of California.

An Evaluation of Permit L Local Anesthesia within Dental Hygiene Practice in Massachusetts.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this descriptive study was to assess data pertinent to the Permit L local anesthesia license among practicing dental hygienists in Massachusetts, providing an overview of characteristics, practice behaviors, barriers for obtaining the permit and self-perceived competency. METHODS: A convenience sample of dental hygienists (n=6,167) identified through a publically available data base were invited to participate in a web-based survey. The survey consisted of demographic and Permit L specific questions. Items regarding opinions were rated using a 5-point Likert scale while frequencies and percentiles were used to evaluate demographics and practice-based information. Spearman's Rank correlation was performed to determine association between variables. RESULTS: A 10% (n=615) response rate was attained with (n=245) non-Permit L holders and (n=370) Permit L holders. Respondents reported significant differences in demographics and opinions between non-Permit L holders and Permit L holders (p<0.01) and between those certified through continuing education or curriculum based programs (p<0.01). Significant relationships were found in demographics (p<0.01) and practice (p<0.05) items in relation to the length of time the Permit L has been held. Themes from the data and comments indicate multiple factors influencing obtaining or not obtaining the Permit L. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide an overview of Permit L local anesthesia administration that is generally comparable to previous studies and offers new insights into why some Massachusetts dental hygienists choose not to pursue certification. This study highlights the potential to increase the prevalence of the Permit L, address barriers to pursuing the Permit L, and further evaluate self-perceived barriers.

Validity and reliability of portfolio assessment of student competence in two dental school populations: a four-year study.

The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate the validity and reliability of portfolio assessment in two U.S. dental schools using a unified framework for validity. In the process of validation, it is not the test that is validated but rather the claims (interpretations and uses) about test scores that are validated. Kane's argument-based validation framework provided the structure for reporting results where validity claims are followed by evidence to support the argument. This multivariate generalizability theory study found that the greatest source of variance was attributable to faculty raters, suggesting that portfolio assessment would benefit from two raters' evaluating each portfolio independently. The results are generally supportive of holistic scoring, but analytical scoring deserves further research. Correlational analyses between student portfolios and traditional measures of student competence and readiness for licensure resulted in significant correlations between portfolios and National Board Dental Examination Part I (r=0.323, p<0.01) and Part II scores (r=0.268, p<0.05) and small and non-significant correlations with grade point average and scores on the Western Regional Examining Board (WREB) exam. It is incumbent upon the users of portfolio assessment to determine if the claims and evidence arguments set forth in this study support the proposed claims for and decisions about portfolio assessment in their respective institutions.

Alumni self-perception of competence at time of dental school graduation.

A survey instrument was administered to recent alumni to evaluate self-perceived competency in twenty-one selected areas at the time of graduation. The questionnaire was completed by 439 (62.8 percent) alumni who graduated between the years 1985 and 1994, inclusive. Graduates generally felt most competent in their ability to treat dental caries and its sequelae and least competent in their ability to recognize myofascial pain and temporomandibular joint disorders. Very little association was demonstrated between demographic characteristics of the respondents and their competency self-ratings. The survey identified areas of strengths and weakness within the present comprehensive care curriculum as perceived by the graduating dentists.