Electronic periodontal tool integration to enrich clinical diagnosis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Electronic-Periodontal-Diagnosis-Tool (EPDT) to facilitate the formulation of a correct periodontal diagnosis and analyze students' perceptions of the use of the EPDT. METHODS: Fifty Year-3 students who recently started their clinical training, were randomly assigned to two groups. Two clinical scenarios involving challenging periodontal diagnoses, each one with unique components, variables, and categories were distributed with specific instructions. The cases were analyzed to determine the correct periodontal diagnosis-half without the use of the EPDT and half with the use of the EPDT. A post-exercise discussion conducted by the faculty explained the answer rationales. The students completed an anonymous/voluntary survey to evaluate their perceptions. Statistical analysis using likelihood ratio chi-square tests and a generalized linear model evaluated whether the use of the EPDT resulted in higher percentages of correct diagnoses. RESULTS: EPDT use resulted in a three times higher percentage of correct classifications than no tool use (48% versus 16%), which the investigators considered an important effect of the EPDT. The generalized-linear-model assessment confirmed that EPDT resulted in better classifications (p < 0.0001). The feedback about the perceptions of the EPDT was favorable. CONCLUSION: Students using the EPDT resulted in higher percentages of correct diagnoses. The EPDT provided students with a useful framework to determine the correct periodontal diagnoses, which is essential in providing appropriate treatments.

The periodontal senior case clinical challenge: Students' opinions of a formative virtual assessment during the COVID-19 emergency.

INTRODUCTION: Due to COVID-19, innovative, virtual educational methods are being developed to provide students with learning experiences comparable to established clinical practices. Our objective was to produce the Periodontal Senior Case Clinical Challenge (PSCCC) that would provide fourth-year students an alternative for senior case presentations and would be a formative assessment for which student opinions would be provided and analysed. The PSCCC would utilise an online, case-based, written, clinical assessment and follow-up, structured discussion to challenge students to demonstrate ability to apply didactic periodontal knowledge to patient-based experiences. We hypothesised the PSCCC would provide effective learning and a formative assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Relevant didactic resources were distributed to 48 students for independent review. The PSCCC was delivered in two sections, (1) a case-based assessment via a virtual classroom with written student responses, and (2) oral discussions conducted via virtual meetings that were moderated and assessed by ten periodontists, with the collaboration of nine residents. A voluntary six-statement survey was used to evaluate the students' opinions of the PSCCC. The scores for 75% (36/48) of students who participated were evaluated for statistical and clinical importance. RESULTS: The value of our PSCCC was supported by 91.7% (33/36) of the analyses (p < .0008). DISCUSSION: The PSCCC was a successful alternative pathway to assess students' clinical and didactic integrated knowledge in periodontics. It provided a unified vision of treatment of the selected case, building on all aspects of the students' periodontal education whilst allowing interaction in a simultaneous, three-tiered educational approach, involving dental students, periodontal residents and faculty. CONCLUSION: In support of our hypothesis, for each of the 6 statements, ≥94.44% (34/36) of the scores given by the students were considered exceptionally strong clinical support for our pedagogical strategy that combines educational resources and can be successfully implemented in other programmes.

Screening for Diabetes in a Dental School Clinic to Assess Interprofessional Communication Between Physicians and Dental Students.

If a dental student diagnoses a patient in a dental school clinic as being at high risk of prediabetes or diabetes, the patient should be referred to his or her physician for further diagnostic evaluation, and the physician should send back the evaluation results so that the dental team can optimize treatment and health care choices if the diagnosis is confirmed. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate physicians' responses to written and oral requests for information regarding follow-up diabetes testing. A secondary aim was to evaluate patients' compliance with recommendations to seek medical care after being determined to be at high risk of prediabetes or diabetes in the dental clinic. Based on at least one positive risk factor for diabetes, 74 patients in one U.S. dental school's clinic were screened by third- and fourth-year dental students for prediabetes or diabetes and underwent point of care HbA1C (glycalated hemoglobin) blood tests between June 2014 and June 2015. Patients with an HbA1C value of 5.7% or above were referred to their physicians for follow-up testing. The physician was mailed the patient's HIPAA release and a request for updates to the student regarding the patient's diabetes status. If the physician did not provide the requested information, a dental student telephoned him or her to obtain the patient's diabetes status. Of the 74 patients, 34 (46%) tested positive with HbA1C tests and were referred to their physicians. Of those 34 referred patients, 20 (59%) saw their physicians for additional evaluations within six months of referral. None of the 20 physicians responded to the written requests for information on additional diabetes testing. After one or two telephone requests, all 20 physicians provided the test results. This study found that most of the patients (59%) followed their dental practitioner's advice to seek follow-up care with their physician, supporting the value of conducting these tests in a dental clinic. However, the results also suggested that a single written request may be insufficient to prompt physicians to return those results and that follow-up communication in a phone call may be more effective.