Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb;42(1):25-9.
doi: 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.1.25. Epub 2012 Feb 29.

Development of the implant surgical technique and assessment rating system

Jung-Chul Park  1 , Ji-Wan Hwang, Jung-Seok Lee, Ui-Won Jung, Seong-Ho Choi, Kyoo-Sung Cho, Jung-Kiu Chai, Chang-Sung Kim
Affiliations

Development of the implant surgical technique and assessment rating system

Jung-Chul Park et al. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: There has been no attempt to establish an objective implant surgical evaluation protocol to assess residents' surgical competence and improve their surgical outcomes. The present study presents a newly developed assessment and rating system and simulation model that can assist the teaching staffs to evaluate the surgical events and surgical skills of residents objectively.

Methods: Articles published in peer-reviewed English journals were selected using several scientific databases and subsequently reviewed regarding surgical competence and assessment tools. Particularly, medical journals reporting rating and evaluation protocols for various types of medical surgeries were thoroughly analyzed. Based on these studies, an implant surgical technique assessment and rating system (iSTAR) has been developed. Also, a specialized dental typodont was developed for the valid and reliable assessment of surgery.

Results: The iSTAR consists of two parts including surgical information and task-specific checklists. Specialized simulation model was subsequently produced and can be used in combination with iSTAR.

Conclusions: The assessment and rating system provided may serve as a reference guide for teaching staffs to evaluate the residents' implant surgical techniques.

Keywords: Dental implantation; Educational assessment; Oral surgical procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. The international and domestic patents for the dental typodonts are currently applied for.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Newly developed specialized simulation typodont for the evaluation of implant surgical performance (JCP All-in, M. Tech Korea, Guri, Korea; International and domestic patents pending). (A, B) Missing teeth, greater palatine arteries and underlying periosteum are shown in the maxilla and mandible models through transparent gingiva for the demonstration. (C) Frontal view with the definitive human-like gingiva is covered. (D) Periosteum-like silicon is additionally applied under the gingiva to evaluate the periosteal releasing incision and guided bone regeneration performance. Arrowhead shows the periosteal releasing incision made on the specialized periosteum under the gingiva.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Part II of implant surgical technique assessment and rating system; task-specific checklist. Mgt: management, GBR: guided bone regeneration.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carter BN. The fruition of Halsteds concept of surgical training. Surgery. 1952;32:518–527. - PubMed
    1. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. 2003;327:1032–1037. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reznick RK. Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg. 1993;165:358–361. - PubMed
    1. Scott DJ, Valentine RJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, et al. Evaluating surgical competency with the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination, skill testing, and intraoperative assessment. Surgery. 2000;128:613–622. - PubMed
    1. Kopta JA. An approach to the evaluation of operative skills. Surgery. 1971;70:297–303. - PubMed