Evaluation of the (clinical) relevance of gross anatomical teaching for dental students and practicing oral surgeons in Berlin.

Knowledge of human anatomy is an important scientific basis for every dentist, and the adequacy of its provision by anatomy faculties is therefore constantly being adapted. Students' motivation to comprehend knowledge is a fundamental prerequisite and has been shown to increase when the relevance of the subject is clear. This study examines dental students' perceptions of the relevance of the anatomy curriculum, with particular reference to clinical practice and the dissection course, in conjunction with the perceptions of surgically specialized dentists. The distinctions between the participating groups concerning their perceived relevance are being discussed particularly regarding their applicability to improve the anatomical education of dental students. The overall aim is to find and highlight aspects of the clinical use of anatomical knowledge towards students, which they are unable to apprehend yet. A questionnaire consisting of information on demographics and professional competence as well as a Likert-style section was administered to dental students at Charité Universitätsmedizin in 2019/2020 (n = 322, 84.96%) and a modified version with congruent questions was administered retrospectively to oral surgeons practicing in Berlin in 2020 (n = 81, 63.3%). A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to examine differences in responses between the cohorts. Demographic data and professional competence were correlated with the participants' ratings of the given statements using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Both groups of respondents expressed a high level of appreciation of the overall relevance of anatomical knowledge, valued the teaching of all human anatomy for dental education, and recognized the relevance of anatomical knowledge for clinical practice. The importance of the dissection course was also rated relatively high by both groups of respondents. The overall appreciation of anatomical knowledge was more prevalent among oral surgeons. There were few correlations between demographics in our findings, showing slightly higher motivation in female students and a growing appreciation of anatomical knowledge as students qualification progressed. The demographics and post-qualification experience of the participating oral surgeons did not influence their perceptions. The results of this survey suggest that there is potential to increase the motivation of dental students to learn anatomy by emphasizing clinical relevance, as perceived by experienced practitioners, during the anatomy curriculum.

Comparison of the study performance of dental students in different subfields of neuroanatomy at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and evaluation of the neuroanatomy course in the fourth preclinical semester.

INTRODUCTION: The dentist's main working area is the head and neck region, which is innervated by the cranial nerves. On a daily basis, dentists must administer local anaesthesia to ensure pain-free treatment and differentiate between dental pain and neuropathies to avoid mistreatment. Therefore, neuroanatomical training, especially on the cranial nerves, is of immense importance for clinical practice. In order to adopt the curriculum, it is essential to constantly evaluate the quality of the training and to investigate whether there is a correlation between the students' performance and the relevance of the subfields to their work. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To address this issue, the results of MC exams in the neuroanatomy course for dental students at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin from winter semester 2014/2015 to winter semester 2019/2020 were analysed. Each question was assigned to a specific subfield of neuroanatomy. We then compared cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei (clinically relevant) with the remaining subfields (clinically less/not relevant) to investigate whether students performed better in anatomy subfields that are more aligned with the clinical practice of a dentist. We also conducted an anonymous survey (n=201) of the dental students. RESULTS: From winter semester 2014/2015 to winter semester 2019/2020, students performed significantly (***, p< 0.001) better on the clinically relevant questions of the MC examination than on the less/not clinically relevant questions. However, when looking at each of the eleven semesters separately, only three semesters actually performed significantly better on the clinically relevant questions. Our survey also showed that students perceived the subfield of cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei to be the most relevant and studied it more intensively out of their own interest. DISCUSSION: The study showed that students perceived the subfield of cranial nerves and cranial nerve nuclei to be the most relevant. However, there was no direct correlation between student performance and clinically relevant questions. Using student performance alone as an indicator of relevance is not optimal, as factors such as motivation to learn can have a significant impact. CONCLUSION: Greater clinical relevance influences what students learn more intensively out of their own interest, but does not influence the results of the MC examination in favour of the subspecialty. Based on the available evidence, it is recommended that the structure of the neuroanatomy course be reconsidered.

Evaluation of a 3D-MC examination format in anatomy.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of education in medical anatomy is a fundamental pillar of good clinical practice. Current reforms of the medical curriculum have resulted in major methodological changes in the teaching and testing of anatomy. A number of recent studies have however described a decrease in positive metrics of anatomical knowledge among students so taught. It has been suggested that the reduced anatomical knowledge measured in these studies may endanger patient safety. As proxy measures of exam quality, evaluation of the levels of students 'achievement in the examinations, assessment of the subjectively perceived level of question difficulty and analysis of exam satisfaction are each suitable parameters of investigation of medical education. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To address these issues with regard to medical education at the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, we have analyzed students' levels of achievement in the anatomical Three Dimensional Multiple Choice (hereafter, 3D-MC)-examination of 2,015 students matriculated in medical studies from Summer Semester of 2014 through Summer Semester of 2017. We either compared students' achievement levels of identical 3D-MC questions using models or prepared anatomical specimen. Furthermore, we have analyzed the type and frequency of cognitive levels used in the anatomical questions in relation to the students' level of achievement. Finally, we conducted an anonymous survey to measure students' (n = 207) and instructors' (n = 16) satisfaction with the 3D-MC-examination in comparison to other employed anatomical testing strategies. RESULTS: Students' achievement is significantly enhanced with anatomical questions using models relative to those utilizing anatomical specimen. Over 80% of the anatomical questions in the 3D-MC-examinations assessed the lowest cognitive levels and higher cognitive question levels were accompanied by a significant decrease of the levels of students' performance. Our survey further revealed that both, students and instructors preferred the practical examinations in anatomy and that the difficulty levels of the 3D-MC-examination was perceived as being the lowest in comparison to the other anatomical testing strategies. DISCUSSION: Testing levels of anatomical understanding using anatomical models is not comparable to human specimen, and thus using specimen before models should be preferred to learn and test close to an authentic medical situation. The application of anatomical models and low cognitive question levels in the examination reduces the subjectively perceived level of difficulty, encourages superficial learning, and therefore decreases the retention of anatomical knowledge. CONCLUSION: Although students and instructors prefer practical examinations in anatomy, the current development does not reflect these results. Therefore, it would be recommendable to rethink the development of anatomical testing strategies based on the existing evidence.