Articles: dentistry.
-
Journal of dentistry · Aug 2015
Improving the quality of papers submitted to dental journals: Transcription of session for editors, associate editors, publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing held at IADR meeting in Cape Town on Wednesday, 25 June 2014.
This satellite symposium was the fourth in a series for editors, publishers, reviewers and all those with an interest in scientific publishing. It was held on Wednesday 25th June 2014 at the IADR International meeting in Cape Town, South Africa. The symposium attracted more than 180 attendees. ⋯ Where possible speakers are identified by name. A subsequent symposium was held during the IADR meeting in Boston on March 11th 2015. Involvement open to editors, associate editors, publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing.
-
Public health nutrition · Jul 2015
Acceptability of delivery of dietary advice in the dentistry setting to address obesity in pre-school children: a case study of the Common Risk Factor Approach.
The Common Risk Factor Approach proposes that public health efforts can be improved by multiple agencies working together on a shared risk factor. The present study aimed to assess the acceptability to parents, dental practice staff and commissioners of the delivery of dietary advice in the dentistry setting in order to address obesity. ⋯ Major concerns about the implementation of the Common Risk Factor Approach were raised by parents and dental practice staff. Specific dietary guidance for both oral health and healthy weight, as well as further research into issues of suitability, feasibility and stigmatisation, are needed.
-
Comparative Study
Utilizing self-assessment software to evaluate student wax-ups in dental morphology.
Traditionally, evaluating student work in preclinical courses has relied on the judgment of experienced clinicians utilizing visual inspection. However, research has shown significant disagreement between different evaluators (interrater reliability) and between results from the same evaluator at different times (intrarater reliability). This study evaluated a new experimental software (E4D Compare) to compare 66 student-produced tooth wax-ups at one U. ⋯ The investigators hypothesized that the software would provide more consistent feedback than visual grading and that a tolerance value could be determined that closely correlated with the faculty grade. The results showed that a tolerance level of 450 μm provided 96% agreement of grades compared with only 53% agreement for faculty. The results suggest that this software could be used by faculty members as a mechanism to evaluate student work and for students to use as a self-assessment tool.
-
Comparative Study
Dental students' ability to assess their performance in a preclinical restorative course: comparison of students' and faculty members' assessments.
Dental education consists of both theoretical and practical learning for students to develop competence in treating patients clinically. When dental students encounter practical courses in their first year as a new educational experience, they must also learn to evaluate themselves. Self-evaluation is an essential skill to learn for dental professionals to keep increasing their competence over the course of their careers. ⋯ Self-evaluation scores did not indicate whether the third-year students tended to over- or underestimate the quality of their own work. However, the second-year students not only overestimated themselves but thought they were above average. The results point to the need to develop students' self-insight with more exercises and practical training.
-
Prospective registration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represents the best solution to reporting bias. The extent to which oral health journals have endorsed and complied with RCT registration is unknown. We identified journals publishing RCTs in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in the Journal Citation Reports. ⋯ The proportion of trials registered was not significantly associated with editorial policies: 29% with results in journals that required or recommended registration, 15% in those that referred indirectly to registration, and 21% in those providing no reference to registration (P = 0.05). Less than one-quarter of RCTs with results published in a sample of oral health journals were registered with a public registry. Improvements are needed with respect to how journals inform and require their authors to register their trials.