scholarly journals Perceptions of e-professionalism among dental students: a UK dental school study

BDJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Dobson ◽  
P. Patel ◽  
P. Neville
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
CA Jurado ◽  
A Tsujimoto ◽  
H Watanabe ◽  
NG Fischer ◽  
JA Hasslen ◽  
...  

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of five different polishing systems on a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network restoration with nanoscale assessment using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and visual assessment performed by dental school senior students and faculty members. Method: Forty-eight full coverage crowns were milled out of polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network CAD/CAM blocks (Vita Enamic) for polishing with one company proprietary, two ceramic and two composite polishing systems. The prepared crowns were divided into six groups: (1) no polishing (control); (2) polishing with Vita Enamic Polishing Kit (VEna); (3) polishing with Shofu Porcelain Laminate Polishing Kit (SCer); (4) polishing with Brasseler Dialite Feather lite All- Ceramic Adjusting & Polishing System (BCer); (5) polishing with Shofu Composite Polishing Kit (SCom); and (6) polishing with Brasseler Composite Polishing Kit (BCom). The polished crown surface topography was observed, and surface roughness and area were measured with AFM. In addition, polished crowns were visually assessed by 15 senior dental students and 15 dental school faculty members. Results: All polishing treatments significantly reduced the surface roughness and area of the crown compared with the control. SCom and BCom showed significantly higher surface area than VEna, and the SCer and BCer groups were intermediate, showing no significant difference from either VEna or SCom and BCom. There were no significant differences in surface roughness between any of the systems. Dental students and faculty members classified the groups polished with VEna, SCer, and BCer groups as clinically acceptable, and they selected BCer group as the best polished restorations and the control group as the least polished restorations. Conclusions: Ceramic and composite polishing systems produced similar polishing results as that observed using a company proprietary polishing system. However, effectiveness for polishing using a company proprietary and ceramic polishing system tends to be higher than composite polishing systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Kazemian ◽  
Mahsa Fayyazi ◽  
Shahrzad Shafiee

Abstract Background Decision making when patients ask a dentist for fee reduction is a real ethical dilemma at dental settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate how dental students and tutors think about their position for, or against fee reduction at dental offices. Method It was a questionnaire-based survey, which examined the ethical attitudes of students and tutors of an Iranian Dental School. The questionnaire included a vignette about an ethical dilemma at a dental office. Different ethical approaches, i.e. duty-based, virtue-oriented and consequentialist arguments, for or against fee reduction at dental office were suggested. Respondents were asked to rank those ethical options. Data was entered and analyzed in SPSS 16.0. Result 121 dental students and thirty-six faculty members (dental specialists) participated in this study. It revealed that a majority of dental students and tutors (68%) are in favor of charging patients less, when facing an imagined request at dental office, using either virtue-oriented (54%) or consequentialist (14%) argument for fee reduction. The difference between rankings of four options was statistically significant, while no statistically significant difference exists neither between male and female respondents, nor students and tutors. Conclusion This case study provides a basis for fruitful discussions in ethics courses for dental students. Our study suggests that financial issues should be considered as a part of ethical training within the dental student's curriculum.


2012 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balasubramanian Madhan ◽  
Haritheertham Gayathri ◽  
Lokanath Garhnayak ◽  
Eslavath Seena Naik

2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sangeetha Chandrasekaran ◽  
Charles Powell ◽  
Laurice De la Rosa ◽  
Anuj Mittal ◽  
Lonnie Johnson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document