Comparisons of student comprehension of 3D‐printed, standard model, and extracted teeth in hands‐on sessions

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionCavity preparation and direct and indirect pulp capping are difficult processes to learn in dentistry. Although plastic teeth are used in universities in Turkey, the standard model does not teach students how to distinguish between dental hard tissues from caries and how this relates to the pulp. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in learning when a three‐dimensional (3D)‐printed tooth was employed in comparison with the standard model and extracted teeth. The differences are evaluated in the design, feasibility, and contribution of the 3D‐printed dental tooth in pre‐clinical education.Materials and MethodsThe multi‐layer 3D‐printed tooth's authentic design and replication of the dental hard tissues and carious lesions are explored with 55 students for pre‐clinical education, which includes caries excavation and direct and indirect pulp capping. The students completed questionnaires evaluating the 3D‐printed teeth through comparison with the plastic and extracted teeth, rated with scores from 1 to 11 (1: poorest conformity; 11: excellent conformity).ResultsThe questionnaire results indicated that students approved the printed tooth model for the practice of theoretical knowledge and the model received ratings between good and excellent. The results were statistically analysed using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test, and the printed teeth had the highest approval from the students (p < .001).ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrated that the use of the designed 3D‐printed tooth is preferred by the students based on their perception of learning cavity preparation and pulp capping in a pre‐clinical environment. Workflow and production were cost‐effective with the use of 3D printing technology. The printed tooth allowed students to gain realistic experience before treating patients.