Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025
An Emulation Model Combining Caries and Periodontitis Risk Assessment With Student Performance Report: An Exploratory Project.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnsen David, Jain Aditi, Garaicoa-Pazmino Carlos, Kolker Justine, Williamson Megumi, Shi Wei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Patient risk assessments for caries and periodontitis are hourly activities for dentists. The present study tested a caries and periodontitis risk assessment format based on managing the person using a critical thinking emulation model including levels of patient capacity and disease management. Additionally, we explored factors in student analysis contributing to the designation of higher/lower-risk determinants for caries and periodontitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Third-year dental students assessed patient risk for recurring disease in periodontics and cariology exercises. The risk assessment thought process becomes the learning outcome, learning guide, and assessment instrument. Students demonstrated the risk assessment analysis with a patient using PowerPoint presentations.
RESULTS: Students applied over 95% of procedural steps (e.g., exam, history) with a range of judgmental steps (65%-100%) in risk level, interprofessional practice, disease progression, compliance, among others. Designation of higher and lower-risk determinants for periodontitis risk assessment (n = 38), students identified differences in patient risk based on whether the patient had diabetes or smoked (p = 0.013 to < 0.001). For caries risk assessment (n = 40), students identified differences between lower- and higher-risk patients for patient compliance (p = 0.001), behavior control (p = 0.006), diet control (p < 0.001), and prognosis (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: The combined learning guide warrants further exploration in guiding dental students' risk analysis for periodontitis and caries by emulating the thinking process of a master clinician. Future work includes probing analysis with binary conclusions, interventions for high-risk people with recurring disease, and the association of treatment and health.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Third-year dental students assessed patient risk for recurring disease in periodontics and cariology exercises. The risk assessment thought process becomes the learning outcome, learning guide, and assessment instrument. Students demonstrated the risk assessment analysis with a patient using PowerPoint presentations.
RESULTS: Students applied over 95% of procedural steps (e.g., exam, history) with a range of judgmental steps (65%-100%) in risk level, interprofessional practice, disease progression, compliance, among others. Designation of higher and lower-risk determinants for periodontitis risk assessment (n = 38), students identified differences in patient risk based on whether the patient had diabetes or smoked (p = 0.013 to < 0.001). For caries risk assessment (n = 40), students identified differences between lower- and higher-risk patients for patient compliance (p = 0.001), behavior control (p = 0.006), diet control (p < 0.001), and prognosis (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: The combined learning guide warrants further exploration in guiding dental students' risk analysis for periodontitis and caries by emulating the thinking process of a master clinician. Future work includes probing analysis with binary conclusions, interventions for high-risk people with recurring disease, and the association of treatment and health.