Distinguishing skill levels with haptic simulation in restorative dentistry: Myth or reality?

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to validate that haptic simulator assistance could distinguish skill levels with haptic simulation in restorative dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work was carried out with 93 first-year, 87 third-year and 44 fifth-year dental students. The promotions of first- and fifth-year dental students made one session to represent the negative and the positive controls, respectively. The third-year dental students were the studied population. Whatever the group, the maximum time for each reparation was restricted to 3 min. All students have to perform the same three exercises. The third-year dental students performed four sessions spread over the whole university year. For each test, the total score provided by the simulator was recorded and analysed. RESULTS: The exercises are not discriminating in direct vision while the exercise in indirect vision is very interesting to distinguish the levels of the learners. CONCLUSION: The results underline that the exercises in indirect vision could distinguish different profiles of student having different preclinical and clinical levels, while making it possible to follow the acquisition of clinical competence.

Study of the use in autonomy of intraoral scanning systems to optimise dental students' performances in fixed prosthodontics practical learning in second year.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the use of intraoral scanner analysis could help students to optimise their performance and their self-assessment abilities in prosthetic preparation without the teacher's assistance in the preclinical course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five second-year dental students were randomly divided into three groups: Control group (C), CeRec group (CR) and PrepCheck group (PC). Group C only use silicon keys to control the preparation thickness. The students in Group CR analysed their work with Cerec™ software. The Group PC use a pedagogic software (PrepCheck™) which allowed comparison with the "master" preparation. They used control tools preparations for three consecutive training sessions. Then a final assessment session without control tool to evaluate their performance was organised. All preparations were objectively evaluated thanks to stl. analysis software (Geomagic® Control X). Each preparation was compared with the master preparation by defining tolerance ranges. An objective overall score out of 20 was assigned to each preparation according to their degree of correspondence. In addition, a questionnaire was performed to analyse the students' perceptions regarding the use of intraoral camera. RESULTS: During the assessment session, no significant difference was revealed between the different groups with respect to the students' performance. The comparative analysis between the self-assessment scores and the objective scores using Geomagic® software showed that digital control tools did not help the student to improve their self-assessment abilities without the teacher's assistance. CONCLUSIONS: The intraoral cameras and specific pedagogic software in autonomy could not improve students' performance for teeth preparation and self-assessment abilities in second year. These digital tools facilitate objective feedback on preparation defects, but constructive criticism needs human reflection. The teacher's opinions and advice remain essential to develop their students' performance and self-assessment skills. The use of digital tools must be integrated in dentistry course to develop the interpret of the results and optimise feedback.

Short-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy versus intermediate-term androgen suppression and radiotherapy, with or without zoledronic acid, in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (TROG 03.04 RADAR): 10-year results from a randomised, phase 3, factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy with curative intent is yet to be defined. Zoledronic acid is effective in preventing androgen suppression-induced bone loss, but its role in preventing castration-sensitive bone metastases in locally advanced prostate cancer is unclear. The RADAR trial assessed whether the addition of 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression, 18 months of zoledronic acid, or both, can improve outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer who receive 6 months of androgen suppression and prostatic radiotherapy. This report presents 10-year outcomes from this trial. METHODS: For this randomised, phase 3, 2 × 2 factorial trial, eligible men were 18 years or older with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2b-4, N0 M0 tumours or T2a, N0 M0 tumours provided Gleason score was ≥7 and baseline prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration was ≥10 µg/L). We randomly allocated participants in a 2 × 2 factorial design by computer-generated randomisation (using the minimisation technique, and stratified by centre, baseline PSA concentration, clinical tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four treatment groups. Patients in the control group received 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) and radiotherapy alone (short-term androgen suppression [STAS]); this treatment was either followed by another 12 months of adjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly; intermediate-term androgen suppression [ITAS]), or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously) starting at randomisation (STAS plus zoledronic acid), or both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). All patients received radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, starting from the end of the fifth month of androgen suppression; dosing options were 66, 70, and 74 Gy in 2-Gy fractions per day, or 46 Gy in 2-Gy fractions followed by a high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose of 19·5 Gy in 6·5-Gy fractions. Treatment allocation was open label. The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality and was analysed according to intention-to-treat using competing-risks methods. The trial is closed to follow-up and this is the final report of the main endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193856. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were enrolled and randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), ITAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 10·4 years (IQR 7·9-11·7). At this 10-year follow-up, no interactions were observed between androgen suppression and zoledronic acid so the treatment groups were collapsed to compare treatments according to duration of androgen suppression: 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (6AS+RT) versus 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy (18AS+RT) and to compare treatments according to whether or not patients received zoledronic acid. The total number of deaths was 375 (200 men receiving 6AS+RT and 175 men receiving 18AS+RT), of which 143 (38%) were attributable to prostate cancer (81 men receiving 6AS+RT and 62 men receiving 18AS+RT). When analysed by duration of androgen suppression, the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 13·3% (95% CI 10·3-16·0) for 6AS+RT versus 9·7% (7·3-12·0) for 18AS+RT, representing an absolute difference of 3·7% (95% CI 0·3-7·1; sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·98], adjusted p=0·035). The addition of zoledronic acid did not affect prostate cancer-specific mortality; the adjusted cumulative incidence of prostate cancer-specific mortality was 11·2% (95% CI 8·7-13·7) with zoledronic acid vs 11·7% (9·2-14·1) without, representing an absolute difference of -0·5% (95% CI -3·8 to 2·9; sHR 0·95 [95% CI 0·69-1·32], adjusted p=0·78). Although safety analysis was not prespecified for this 10-year analysis, one new serious adverse event (osteonecrosis of the mandible, in a patient who received 18 months of androgen suppression plus zoledronic acid) occurred since our previous report, bringing the total number of cases of this serious adverse event to three (<1% out of 530 patients who received zoledronic acid evaluated for safety) and the total number of drug-related serious adverse events to 12 (1% out of all 1065 patients evaluable for safety). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy is a more effective treatment option for locally advanced prostate cancer than 6 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, but the addition of zoledronic acid to this treatment regimen is not beneficial. Evidence from the RADAR and French Canadian Prostate Cancer Study IV trials suggests that 18 months of androgen suppression with moderate radiation dose escalation is an effective but more tolerable option than longer durations of androgen suppression for men with locally advanced prostate cancer including intermediate and high risk elements. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.

Virtual aids and students' performance with haptic simulation in implantology.

OBJETIVES: This study aims to validate that haptic simulator assistance could improve drilling ability in implantology and that the repetition of training session could highlight a learning curve. METHODS: This work was carried out with 88 first-year dental students. After randomization, students were divided into two groups. Group 1 was assigned to prepare an implant site for a left first mandibular molar (36) on haptic simulator with assistance provided by simulator. Group 2 had to perform the same exercise without assistance. Whatever the group, the maximum time for each reparation was restricted to 5 min. An interval of 1 week was done between each session. For each test, different objective parameters provided by the simulator were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: This study showed that the presence of virtual aids led to quickly obtain better results, and the training led to gradually acquire sufficient competence to do without virtual aids. CONCLUSION: By associating virtual assistance and repetition, the student will acquire more quickly the skills allowing to carry out his clinical gestures in real conditions.

Contribution of Haptic Simulation to Analogic Training Environment in Restorative Dentistry.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of virtual reality to the conventional analogic training environment and show the complementarity of conventional techniques and virtual reality in the learning of dental students. All 88 first-year dental students at a dental school in France in early 2019 were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1 (n = 45) was assigned to cavity preparations on a haptic simulator (Virteasy) and group 2 (n = 43) was assigned to conventional practical work on plastic analogue teeth (Kavo). Following three training sessions, the students in group 1 took a final exam on the same plastic analogue teeth exercise. The results showed improvement in the drilling skill of both groups. The simulator-trained group (group 1) had similar results to the plastic analogue-trained group (group 2) in the final test on a plastic analogue tooth. In this study, virtual reality allowed an assessment based on objective criteria and reduced the subjectivity of evaluations conducted on plastic analogue teeth. Considering the saving of supervision and teaching time as well as the material gain offered by virtual reality, the learning methods of haptic simulators are educational options that should be considered by dental educators.

Effect of bite tray impression technique on relocation accuracy in frameless stereotactic radiotherapy.

A previously developed method for achieving patient relocation in fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (attachment of an infrared fiducial system to a bite tray) relies on the integrity of a bite tray system that incorporates moulding to the patient's upper dentition. Reproducible and accurate patient positioning requires stability of the bite tray and mould during the full treatment process, both during the time the bite tray is inserted in the patient's mouth, and between separate bite tray insertions. The optimum construction method for a stable reproducible tray has not been sufficiently investigated. We undertook a study to identify factors which might influence the integrity of the hard palate bite tray system. Reprosil Fast Set Putty was used to construct 3 impression conditions; teeth only; teeth and alveolar sulcus; and teeth, alveolar sulcus, and the hard palate. Reproducibility was assessed by volunteers inserting the impressions multiple times and recording the locations of 8 standard reference points. Our results showed the optimal impression technique (i.e., the one that led to the smallest ranges in positional and rotational errors) was that which incorporated the teeth, alveolar sulcus, and hard palate.

Relative contribution of haptic technology to assessment and training in implantology.

BACKGROUND: The teaching of implant surgery, as in other medical disciplines, is currently undergoing a particular evolution. AIM OF THE STUDY: To assess the usefulness of haptic device, a simulator for learning and training to accomplish basic acts in implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 people including 40 third-year dental students without knowledge in implantology (divided into 2 groups: 20 beginners and 20 experiencing a simulator training course) and 20 experienced practitioners (experience in implantology >15 implants) participated in this study. A basic exercise drill was proposed to the three groups to assess their gestural abilities. RESULTS: The results of the group training with the simulator tended to be significantly close to those of the experienced operators. CONCLUSION: Haptic simulator brings a real benefit in training for implant surgery. Long-term benefit and more complex exercises should be evaluated.