Interdisciplinary all-on-four® concept for mandibular jaw in dental education - do students benefit from individual 3d printed models from real patient cases?

Abstract

Purpose: Digitalization is assuming increasing significance in dental education, as dental students are increasingly exposed to digital implant planning and contemporary technologies such as 3D printing. In this study, we present a cohort analysis aimed at assessing the potential benefits derived from the utilization of 3D prints to seamlessly translate planned procedures into real-life applications.

Methods: 21 dental students participated in a virtual planning and hands-on course across two cohorts (C1: n = 10, C2: n = 11). The virtual implant planning phase involved the placement of four implants on an atrophic lower jaw model. Subsequently, Cohort 1 (C1) executed the implantation procedure on a prefabricated hands-on model, while Cohort 2 (C2) engaged with 3D prints representing their individual implant planning during the hands-on session. Subjective assessments of knowledge, skills, and the perceived utility of 3D prints were conducted through pre- and post-course questionnaires, utilizing a 5-point scale.

Results: In the subjective evaluation, 17 out of 21 participants expressed a positive appraisal of the use of personalized models. Notably, there was no statistically significant improvement in overall knowledge scores; however, there was a discernible increase of 0.5 points in the ratings related to perceived expertise and procedural abilities.

Conclusion: While there was a notable increase in the subjective ratings of knowledge and abilities, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups. The consensus among dental students is that individually planned and printed implant models serve as a valuable and effective tool in hands-on courses.

Keywords: 3-D printing; Curriculum development; Dental education; Dental implantation; Dental students; Hands-on course; Questionnaires.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the course timeline

Fig. 2

Virtually planned implants of the students with individual templates on the lower jaw of the same patient case

Fig. 3

Overview of course materials for cohort 2 included individualized models, the necessary machinery, an implantation set, dummy implants, models equipped with a gingiva mask, and drilling guides. To ensure confidentiality and data protection, the students’ names were anonymized.Overview of course materials for cohort 2 (individualized models, machine, implantation set, dummy implants, models with gingiva mask and drilling guides); the students names are blinded due to data-protection

Fig. 4

Boxplot for self-assessment of knowledge regarding 3D-planning compared for the control (no 3D-print, n = 10) and intervention group (using 3D-print, n = 11) separated for evaluation point (before and after the course)

Fig. 5

Difference-boxplot for self-assessment of knowledge of 3D-planning compared for the control (no 3D-print, n = 10) and intervention group (using 3D-print, n = 11)

Fig. 6

Boxplot for self-assessment of implantology abilities compared for the control (no 3D-print, n = 10) and intervention group (using 3D-print, n = 11) separated for evaluation point (before and after the course)