口腔本科教学中牙周前期实习探诊训练模式的探索

摘要

目的 探索口腔本科教学中牙周探诊教学的训练模式,以提高学生探诊的准确度.方法 将62名即将开始实习室牙周前期实习的口腔本科学生分为教改组和对照组,每组31人.教改组先使用透明牙龈模型探诊训练30 min,再使用传统探诊模型训练90 min,总训练时间2 h,分布在2节课中进行重复强化训练.对照组只应用传统探诊模型训练1h.最后应用传统探诊模型对两组学生进行考核,记录模型Ramfjord代表牙的探诊深度,并与教师探诊结果 进行比较.结果教改组与教师探诊完全一致位点百分比[63.4%(708/1116)]显著高于对照组[60.0%(670/1116)],P=0.012.两组切牙与教师探诊完全一致位点百分比[教改组为69.1%(257/372),对照组为65.9%(245/372)]均显著高于磨牙[教改组为58.9%(219/372),对照组为54.3%(202/372)](P<0.01);两组颊舌侧位点与教师探诊完全一致位点百分比[教改组为88.7%(330/372),对照组为80.4%(299/372)]均显著高于邻面位点[教改组为50.8%(378/744),对照组为49.9%(371/744)](P<0.01).结论 探诊教学的综合改革可以提高学生探诊的准确度;口腔本科教学牙周前期实习中,应特别加强对磨牙区和邻面位点的探诊训练.%Objective To explore the training pattern of periodontal probing practice so as to improve the accuracy of probing depth measurements of undergraduate students. Methods Sixty-two undergraduate dental students in their pre-clinical training course were divided into two groups (31 students in each group):the reform group and the control group. The students in reform group learned and practiced periodontal probing by using transparent gingiva models for 30 minutes, and using conventional periodontal probing models for further 90 minutes in two sessions. The total practicing time was 2 hours. The students in control group learned and practiced periodontal probing using conventional periodontal probing models only for 1 hour of practicing time. After the training, new conventional periodontal probing models were used to evaluate the accuracy of probing depth measurements of the students in the two groups. The probing depths of Ramfjord index teeth were recorded by the students and were compared with the results of an experienced teacher's measurements. Results The percentage of absolutely consistent sites in the reform group (63.4%[708/1116]) was significantly higher than that of the control group (60.0% [670/1116]) (P=0.012). In both reform group and control group, the percentages of absolutely consistent sites of the incisors (reform group:69.1%[257/372], control group:65.9%[245/372]) were significantly higher than those of the molars (reform group 58.9%[219/372],control group 54.3%[202/372])(P<0.01), meanwhile, the percentages of absolutely consistent sites of the buccal-lingual sites (reform group:88.7%[330/372], control group:80.4%[299/372]) were significantly higher than those of the interproximal sites (reform group:50.8%[378/744], control group:49.9%[371/744]) (P<0.01). Conclusions The comprehensive reform of periodontal probing training could improve the accuracy of probing depth measurement of the undergraduate students. During the pre-clinical practice, probing training in the molar areas and the interproximal sites should be reinforced.