König J, Rühling A, Schlemme H, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann H C
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Kiel, Germany.
Eur J Dent Educ. 2002 Nov;6(4):169-75. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2002.00258.x.
The influence of systematic dummy-head training with Periopolishe (PP, group A) and Gracey instruments (GRA, group B) on the effectiveness of root debridement was evaluated by Rühling et al., 2002 (9). Their results indicate that independent of the instrument used, untrained operators were only able to debride root surfaces at low levels of effectiveness. It was possible to increase effectiveness to a high level through systematic training in both groups. The aim of the present study was to assess the role of operator motivation and self-assessment on scaling effectiveness. Before baseline, operators were asked to answer a questionnaire rating the expectation of the instrument performance. Four groups of inexperienced operators (n = 11 each) received 10 weeks dummy-head training. In groups A (GRA) and B (PP), training was combined with a motivational programme. Groups C (GRA) and D (PP) received the same training, but no additional motivational programme. In a dummy-head, 10 test teeth were debrided and operators were asked to estimate their effectiveness of debridement at each test day. Effectiveness was calculated as percentage of debrided root area on 10 test teeth at different time points with an image analysis programme (NIH Image) and ANOVA. Two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test (unpaired) and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test (paired). Motivated groups (A and B) reached about 25% higher debridement results (p < 0.001) and were able to estimate their effectiveness more precisely compared to groups C and D. In the low motivation groups (C and D), overestimation of more than 20% was evident (p < 0.001). The questionnaires revealed underestimation of the GRA instruments and overestimation of PP instruments. Operator motivation and self-assessment greatly influence learning of effective root debridement.
吕林等人在2002年评估了使用Periopolishe（PP，A组）和格蕾西器械（GRA，B组）进行系统性模拟人头训练对根面清创效果的影响（9）。他们的结果表明，无论使用何种器械，未经训练的操作人员只能以较低的清创效果清理根面。通过两组的系统性训练，都有可能将清创效果提高到较高水平。本研究的目的是评估操作人员的动机和自我评估对洁治效果的作用。在基线前，要求操作人员回答一份问卷，对器械性能的期望进行评分。四组无经验的操作人员（每组n = 11）接受了10周的模拟人头训练。在A组（GRA）和B组（PP）中，训练与激励计划相结合。C组（GRA）和D组（PP）接受相同的训练，但没有额外的激励计划。在一个模拟人头上，对10颗测试牙进行清创，并要求操作人员在每个测试日估计他们的清创效果。使用图像分析程序（NIH Image）和方差分析，将清创效果计算为在不同时间点10颗测试牙上清创根面面积的百分比。使用曼-惠特尼U检验（非配对）和威尔科克森符号秩检验（配对）对两组进行比较。与C组和D组相比，有动机的组（A组和B组）的清创结果高出约25%（p < 0.001），并且能够更准确地估计他们的清创效果。在低动机组（C组和D组）中，明显存在超过20%的高估（p < 0.001）。问卷显示对GRA器械的低估和对PP器械的高估。操作人员的动机和自我评估对有效根面清创的学习有很大影响。
