ERDOĞAN FİŞEKÇİOĞLU, NİLÜFER ERSAN, ZEHRA SEMANUR DÖLEKOĞLU, DİLHAN İLGÜY, MEHMET İLGÜY

radiological anatomy knowledge among dental students

Amaç: Diş hekimleri, dental radyografiler üzerindeki normal anatomik yapıları belirleyebilmeli ve teknik hatalara bağlı görüntü distorsiyonları ve artefaktları konusunda bilgi sahibi olmalıdır. Diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme çıktılarının değerlendirilmesi müfredatın geliştirilmesi için eğitimcilere bilgi sağlayabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin panoramik ve periapikal radyografilerle ilgili bilgilerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Diş hekimliği 3., 4. ve 5. sınıf öğrencileri (n=129) ile yüksek lisans öğrencilerinin (n=23) yer aldığı bu çalışmada 10 farklı anatomik yapının işaretlendiği 10 adet periapikal radyografi ve 26 farklı anatomik yapının işaretlendiği 5 adet panoramik radyografi kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca yüksek lisans öğrencileri için 12 hasta konumlandırma hatası, 3 yabancı cisim varlığı ve 4 teknik hata gözlenen panoramik radyografiler çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir.Bulgular: Anatomik bilgi düzeyi konusunda sınıflar arasında istatistik açıdan anlamlı farklar gözlenmiş, 3. sınıf öğrencileri en yüksek skoru elde etmişlerdir (%90; p

Diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin radyoanatomi bilgilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Aim: The dentists should identify the normal anatomic structures on dental radiographs and know about image distortion characteristics of technical errors and projection artifacts. Strategies must be developed by authorities in order to implement this attitude into regular curriculum of dental faculties. Assessment of the learning outcomes of dental students may give information to help dental educators improve their curriculum. The aim of this study was to assess the retention of knowledge of dental students on the panoramic and periapical radiographs.Materials and Method: Undergraduate students from the third up to the fifth year (n=129) and postgraduate students (n=23) took part in the study. The test consisted of 10 questions accompanied by 10 periapical radiographs that demonstrated labeled anatomical structures, and 5 panoramic radiographs consisting of 26 anatomical structures with one or more labels. For the postgraduate students, 12 patient positioning errors, 3 foreign body detection and 4 technical errors were additionally questioned. Results: A statistically significant correlation was found between the classes and the overall performance on anatomical knowledge, with the 3rd year students receiving the highest score (90%, p

PDF

___

1.Monsour PA, Mendoza AR. Panoramic ghost images as an aid in the localization of soft tissue calcifications. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology 1990; 69: 748-756.
2.Kaugars GE, Collet WK. Panoramic ghosts. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology 1987; 63: 103-108.
3.ADA (American Dental Association), Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation standards for dental education facilities. Chicago 1988; 16.
4.ADA (American Dental Association), Commission on Dental Accreditation, 1998. Accreditation standards for dental education programs. Chicago, IL 1998; c1995-2007
5.ADEA (American Dental Education Association). Competencies for the new dentist. Journal of Dental Education 2006; 70: 757-759.
6.FGDP (The Faculty of General Dental Practice). Key skills in primary dental care: the indispensible e-learning package. London, UK 2007.
7.IADMFR (International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology) Education Standards Committee. Undergraduate dental education in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2007; 36: 443-450.
8.Razmus TF, Williamson GF, Van Dis ML. Assessment of the knowledge of graduating American dental students about the panoramic image. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology 1993; 76: 397-402.
9.Ersan N, İlgüy M, İlgüy D. Eagle sendromu: olgu bildirimi. Acta Odontologica Turcica 2016; 33: 30-34
10.Venkatraman S, Gowda JS, Kamarthi N. Unusual ghost image in a panoramic radiograph. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2011; 40: 397-399.
11.Perschbacher S. Interpretation of panoramic radiographs. Australian Dental Journal 2012; 57: 40-45.
12.No authors listed. Undergraduate dental school curriculum: Dental radiology. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology 1967; 24: 191-195.
13.Mourshed F. The undergraduate dental radiology curriculum. Journal of Dental Education 1979; 43: 680-682.
14.No authors listed. American Association of Dental Schools curricular guidelines for oral radiology. Journal of Dental Education 1980; 44: 674-679.
15.No authors listed. Curricular guidelines in postdoctoral oral radiology. Journal of Dental Education 1984; 48: 171-176.
16.No authors listed. Curriculum guidelines for predoctoral oral radiology. Journal of Dental Education 1987; 51: 254-259.
17.Shanley DB, Dowling PA, Claffey N, Nattestad A. European convergence towards higher standards in dental education: The DentEd Thematic Network Project. Medical Education 2002; 36: 186-192.
18.Plasschaert AJ, Holbrook WP, Delap E, Martinez C, Walmsley AD; Association for Dental Education in Europe. Profile and competences for the European dentist. European Journal of Dental Education 2005; 9: 98-107.
19.Plasschaert AJ, Lindh C, McLoughlin J, Manogue M, Murtomaa H, Nattestad A, et al. Curriculum structure and the European Credit Transfer System for European dental schools: part I. European Journal of Dental Education 2006; 10: 123-130.
20.Kumar V, Gadbury-Amyot CC. A case-based and teambased learning model in oral and maxillofacial radiology. Journal of Dental Education 2012; 76: 330-337.
21.Rushton VE, Hirschmann PN, Bearn DR. The effectiveness of undergraduate teaching of the identification of radiographic film faults. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2005; 34: 337-342.