Thune Noora Helene, Kristensen Anna Tostrup, Sehic Amer, Haabeth Brox Julie Marie, Utheim Tor Paaske, Hammer Hugo Lewi, Khan Qalbi
Institute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway.
Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, 0424 Oslo, Norway.
Dent J (Basel). 2025 Feb 27;13(3):105. doi: 10.3390/dj13030105.
: A thorough knowledge of tooth morphology, encompassing the detailed structural complexities, is essential for the practice of dental hygienists in all aspects of their profession. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of two instructional approaches in tooth morphology education, by analyzing the performance of dental hygienist students trained with human extracted teeth compared to those educated with plastic teeth models. : This study included two cohorts of undergraduate dental hygienist students: a control group (n = 27) trained using human teeth, and an experimental group (n = 34) trained using plastic teeth models. Each group underwent two consecutive practical exams where they identified all 32 permanent teeth and 8 deciduous molars. Initially, students were tested on the training material that they were assigned (either extracted human teeth or plastic teeth), and, subsequently, they were tested using the alternative material. Both the number and patterns of identification errors were recorded and analyzed. Paired -tests were used to compare error rates between real and plastic teeth for students trained on either plastic or real teeth, unpaired -tests were conducted to assess differences in performance between students trained on plastic versus real teeth when tested on both tooth types, and Fisher's exact tests were employed to examine variations in error proportions across maxillary and mandibular tooth categories. : The control group recorded a mean of 6.41 errors per student (total of 173 errors), with three students (11.1%) failing by committing over 12 errors. Their performance improved to a mean of 5.44 errors (total of 147 errors) when tested on plastic teeth, although the improvement was not statistically significant ( = 0.20). Conversely, the experimental group demonstrated high accuracy on plastic teeth, with 19 out of 34 students (55.9%) achieving perfect scores and a total of only 50 errors (mean, 1.47). Their performance, however, declined when tested on real teeth, escalating to a total of 354 errors, with 32 students (94.12%) making more errors on real teeth than on plastic, resulting in a significant increase in errors to an average of 10.41 per student ( < 0.001). : This study demonstrates that students perform best when tested on the materials that they initially were trained with, showing that real teeth provide better educational outcomes than plastic models. This advantage underscores the importance of using natural teeth when learning dental anatomy.
全面了解牙齿形态，包括其详细的结构复杂性，对于口腔保健员在其职业的各个方面的实践至关重要。本研究的目的是通过分析接受人类拔除牙齿训练的口腔保健员学生与接受塑料牙齿模型教育的学生的表现，评估两种教学方法在牙齿形态教育中的效果。：本研究包括两组本科口腔保健员学生：一个对照组（n = 27）使用人类牙齿进行训练，一个实验组（n = 34）使用塑料牙齿模型进行训练。每组都进行了两次连续的实践考试，在考试中他们要识别出所有32颗恒牙和8颗乳牙。最初，学生们在他们被分配的训练材料（要么是拔除的人类牙齿，要么是塑料牙齿）上进行测试，随后，他们使用另一种材料进行测试。记录并分析识别错误的数量和模式。配对t检验用于比较在塑料或真牙上训练的学生在真牙和塑料牙上的错误率，当两种牙齿类型都进行测试时，使用非配对t检验来评估在塑料牙与真牙上训练的学生在表现上的差异，并且使用Fisher精确检验来检查上颌和下颌牙齿类别中错误比例的变化。：对照组学生每人平均记录6.41个错误（总共173个错误），有三名学生（11.1%）因犯超过12个错误而不及格。当用塑料牙齿进行测试时，他们的表现提高到平均5.44个错误（总共14个错误），尽管这种提高在统计学上并不显著（P = 0.20）。相反，实验组在塑料牙齿上表现出很高的准确性，34名学生中有19名（55.9%）获得满分，总共只有50个错误（平均1.47个）。然而，当用真牙进行测试时，他们的表现下降，错误总数增加到354个，32名学生（94.1%）在真牙上犯的错误比在塑料牙上多，导致错误显著增加，平均每名学生10.41个错误（P < 0.001）。：本研究表明，学生在使用他们最初接受训练的材料进行测试时表现最佳，这表明真牙比塑料模型提供更好的教育效果。这一优势强调了在学习牙科解剖学时使用天然牙齿的重要性。
