Diş Hekimliği 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi Klinik Pratiğine Bakış Açısının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Mersin Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin Ağız, Diş ve Çene Cerrahisi kliniğindeki uygulamalara ilişkin bakış açılarını değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Bu anket çalışması, Mart–Nisan 2024 tarihleri arasında Mersin Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi’nde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya 80 beşinci sınıf diş hekimliği öğrencisi katılmıştır. Toplam 29 sorudan oluşan ankete verilen yanıtlar, Likert tipi bir puanlama sistemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Anket formu Google Formlar üzerinden hazırlanmış ve katılımcılara e-posta yoluyla ulaştırılarak doldurmaları istenmiştir. Veriler IBM SPSS 23 versiyonu kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışma bulgularına göre, çocuk hastalarda her iki anestezi tekniğinin uygulanmasında daha fazla güçlük yaşandığı tespit edilmiştir (infiltrasyon: %32,5; rejyonel: %20). Genel olarak katılımcılar, lokal anestezi uygulamalarına ilişkin anatomik veya teorik bilgileri konusunda önemli bir eksiklik hissetmediklerini bildirmiştir. Katılımcıların yalnızca %5’i “Klinik acil durumları yönetmek için yeterli bilgiye sahibim” ifadesine kesin olarak katılmıştır. Öğrenciler tarafından çekimi en zor olarak bildirilen dişler, posterior mandibula bölgesinde yer alan endodontik tedavili dişler ve hem maksilla hem de mandibulada yer alan kök parçalarıdır (%6,3). Buna karşılık, mandibula anterior bölgesindeki dişlerin çekimi en kolay olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuç: Lokal anestezi uygulamaları konusunda yeterli teorik ve anatomik eğitim alan öğrencilere, daha fazla pratik deneyim fırsatı sağlanmalıdır. Diş hekimliği fakültelerindeki öğrenciler, yeterli düzeyde yetkinlik kazanana kadar temel yaşam desteği ve medikal acil durum uygulamaları konusunda eğitilmelidir.

Keywords

• Diş hekimliği eğitimi
• diş hekimliği öğrencileri
• diş hekimliği stresi analizi
• diş çekimi
• lokal anestezi

Evaluation of the Perspectives of 5th-Year Dental Students on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinical Practice

Abstract

Purpose/ Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the perspectives of 5th-year students at Mersin University Faculty of Dentistry regarding clinical practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Methods: This survey study was conducted at Mersin University, Faculty of Dentistry, in March and April 2024. Eighty fifth-year dental students participated in the study. Responses to the survey, which consisted of 29 questions, were evaluated using a Likert-type scoring system. The survey form was formatted using Google Forms and distributed to the participants via email for completion. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 23. Results: The study findings indicated that greater difficulty was encountered when administering both anesthesia techniques to pediatric patients (infiltration: 32.5%, regional: 20%). Overall, the participants reported that they did not perceive any significant deficiencies in their anatomical or theoretical knowledge regarding the administration of local anesthesia. Only 5% of the participants strongly agreed with the statement, "I have sufficient knowledge to manage clinical emergencies." The teeth that participants found most difficult to extract were endodontically treated teeth in the posterior mandibular region and root fragments in both the maxilla and mandible (6.3%), whereas teeth in the anterior mandibular region were reported to be the least challenging. Conclusion: Students who receive adequate theoretical and anatomical training in local anesthesia applications should be provided with more opportunities for practical experience. Students in dental faculties must be trained in basic life support and medical emergency applications until they achieve sufficient competence.

Keywords

• Dental education
• dental students
• dental stress analysis
• tooth extraction
• local anesthesia

References

1. 1. American Dental Education Association. ADEA foundation knowledge and skills for the new general dentist. J Dent Educ 2011;75(7):936–40.
2. 2. Divaris K, et al. The academic environment: the students’ perspective. Eur J Dent Educ 2008;12(2):120–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2007.00494.x
3. 3. Macluskey M, et al. Development of a structured clinical operative test (SCOT) in the assessment of practical ability in the oral surgery undergraduate curriculum. Br Dent J 2004;196(4):225-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810989
4. 4. Field MJ, Jeffcoat MK. Dental education at the crossroads: a report by the Institute of Medicine. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126(2):191–5.
5. 5. Cabbar F, et al. Students’ perspectives on undergraduate oral surgery education. BMC Med Educ 2019;19(1):265. doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1703-y.
6. 6. Kamal M, Abdulwahab M. Self-confidence in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a cross-sectional study of undergraduate dental students at Kuwait University. BMC Med Educ 2021;21(1):1–9. doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02614-x
7. 7. Buck D, et al. What makes a good dentist and do recent trainees make the grade? The views of vocational trainers. Br Dent J 2000;189(10):563–6.
8. 8. Al-Dajani M. Dental students’ perceptions of undergraduate clinical training in oral and maxillofacial surgery in an integrated curriculum in Saudi Arabia. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2015;12:45. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.45.

9. 9. Wong G, et al. Student-to-student dental local anesthetic preclinical training: impact on students' confidence and anxiety in clinical practice. J Dent Educ 2019;83(1):56–63. doi: 10.21815/JDE.019.007
10. 10. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932;140:1–55.
11. 11. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2010;15(5): 625-632. doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
12. 12. Subramanian J, et al. The importance of “student voice” in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17(1):e136–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2012.00773.x
13. 13. Macluskey M, et al. A national survey of UK final year students’ opinion of undergraduate oral surgery teaching. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16(4):e205–12. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2011.00717.x
14. 14. Brand HS, et al. Tooth extraction education at dental schools across Europe. BDJ Open 2015;1:15002. doi: 10.1038/bdjopen.2015.2
15. 15. Hupp JR, Ellis III E, Tucker MR. Prevention and management of medical emergencies. Contemporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013. p. 19-36.
16. 16. Malamed SF. Medical Emergencies in the Dental Office. 7th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
17. 17. Albelaihi HF, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and perceived confidence in the management of medical emergencies in the dental office: a survey among the dental students and interns. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7(6):364–9. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_414_17
18. 18. Graham CA, Scollon D. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for UK undergraduate dental students. Resuscitation 1996;32(2):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9572(96)01012-X
19. 19. Macluskey M, Durham J. Oral surgery undergraduate teaching and experience in the United Kingdom: a national survey. European Journal of Dental Education 2009;13(1):52-57. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00537.x
20. 20. Tanzawa T, et al. Medical emergency education using a robot patient in a dental setting. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17(1):e114–9. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2012.00770.x.
21. 21. Albino JE, et al. Assessing dental students’ competence: best practice recommendations in the performance assessment literature and investigation of current practices in predoctoral dental education. J Dent Educ 2008;72(12):1405-1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2008.72.12.tb04620.x