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.