File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The Implementation of the Minimal Intervention Dentistry in the Undergraduate Dental Clinical Teaching: A Retrospective Audit

TitleThe Implementation of the Minimal Intervention Dentistry in the Undergraduate Dental Clinical Teaching: A Retrospective Audit
Authors
Issue Date2022
Citation
Compendium of Oral Science, 2022, v. 9, p. 63-68 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: This study aims to assess the prevalence of minimal intervention dentistry (MID) treatment planned during the undergraduate clinical teaching. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective audit, clinical records from 108 dental students were collected and categorized into three cohorts; 2009/2014, 2010/2015, and 2011/2016. The number of direct restorations [amalgam restorations (AR) and composite restorations (CR)], fixed partial dental prostheses [conventional bridges (CB) and resin-bonded-bridges (RBB)] and single tooth indirect restorations (crowns and onlays) prescribed clinically by the undergraduate clinicians were retrieved. Results: Among the three cohorts, a trend was observed in the decrease of AR and the increase of CR prescribed by the dental students. The highest AR (9.6%) was performed by Cohort 2009/2014 and the highest CR (97.7%) was performed by Cohort 2011/2016. For fixed partial dental prostheses, RBB (67.6%) was the main treatment of choice, as compared to CB (32.4%). The cohort 2011/2016 prescribed the highest number of RBB as compared to earlier cohorts. In cases where teeth required cuspal protection, crowns (91.4%) dominated the treatment modality compared to onlays (8.6%). Conclusion: This study showed the dental undergraduates in UiTM endorsed the MID approach as recommended in the contemporary restorative dentistry.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316728

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAb Ghani, SM-
dc.contributor.authorTengku Mohd Ariff, TF-
dc.contributor.authorOng, TK-
dc.contributor.authorLim, TW-
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-16T07:22:21Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-16T07:22:21Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationCompendium of Oral Science, 2022, v. 9, p. 63-68-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316728-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aims to assess the prevalence of minimal intervention dentistry (MID) treatment planned during the undergraduate clinical teaching. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective audit, clinical records from 108 dental students were collected and categorized into three cohorts; 2009/2014, 2010/2015, and 2011/2016. The number of direct restorations [amalgam restorations (AR) and composite restorations (CR)], fixed partial dental prostheses [conventional bridges (CB) and resin-bonded-bridges (RBB)] and single tooth indirect restorations (crowns and onlays) prescribed clinically by the undergraduate clinicians were retrieved. Results: Among the three cohorts, a trend was observed in the decrease of AR and the increase of CR prescribed by the dental students. The highest AR (9.6%) was performed by Cohort 2009/2014 and the highest CR (97.7%) was performed by Cohort 2011/2016. For fixed partial dental prostheses, RBB (67.6%) was the main treatment of choice, as compared to CB (32.4%). The cohort 2011/2016 prescribed the highest number of RBB as compared to earlier cohorts. In cases where teeth required cuspal protection, crowns (91.4%) dominated the treatment modality compared to onlays (8.6%). Conclusion: This study showed the dental undergraduates in UiTM endorsed the MID approach as recommended in the contemporary restorative dentistry.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofCompendium of Oral Science-
dc.titleThe Implementation of the Minimal Intervention Dentistry in the Undergraduate Dental Clinical Teaching: A Retrospective Audit-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLim, TW: tongwah@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLim, TW=rp02914-
dc.identifier.doi10.24191/cos.v9i2.19234-
dc.identifier.hkuros336557-
dc.identifier.volume9-
dc.identifier.spage63-
dc.identifier.epage68-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats