Assessment formats in dental medicine: An overview

Aim: At the annual meeting of German dentists in Frankfurt am Main in 2013, the Working Group for the Advancement of Dental Education (AKWLZ) initiated an interdisciplinary working group to address assessments in dental education. This paper presents an overview of the current work being done by this working group, some of whose members are also actively involved in the German Association for Medical Education's (GMA) working group for dental education. The aim is to present a summary of the current state of research on this topic for all those who participate in the design, administration and evaluation of university-specific assessments in dentistry.Method: Based on systematic literature research, the testing scenarios listed in the National Competency-based Catalogue of Learning Objectives (NKLZ) have been compiled and presented in tables according to assessment value.Results: Different assessment scenarios are described briefly in table form addressing validity (V), reliability (R), acceptance (A), cost (C), feasibility (F), and the influence on teaching and learning (EI) as presented in the current literature. Infoboxes were deliberately chosen to allow readers quick access to the information and to facilitate comparisons between the various assessment formats. Following each description is a list summarizing the uses in dental and medical education.Conclusion: This overview provides a summary of competency-based testing formats. It is meant to have a formative effect on dental and medical schools and provide support for developing workplace-based strategies in dental education for learning, teaching and testing in the future

Clinical long-term success of contemporary nano-filled resin composites in class I and II restorations cured by LED or halogen light

Objectives The use of LED light-curing units (LED LCUs) for polymerising resin-based composite restorations has become widespread throughout dentistry. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical longitudinal studies that evaluate the comparative efficacy of LED-based polymerisation in direct posterior composite restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance of class I and II resin composite restorations for two successful composite restorative materials cured with LED versus halogen LCUs. Methods One hundred restorations were placed using the nano-filled composites Grandio® or Filtek™ Supremé. The following test groups were established: LED-Grandio® n = 23 (LG), LED-Filtek™ Supremé n = 21 (LS). As controls were used: Halogen-Grandio® n = 28 (HG), Halogen-Filtek™ Supremé n = 28 (HS). All restorations were evaluated according to the clinical criteria of the CPM index (C-criteria) at baseline and after 6, 12 and 36 months. Results After 12 and 36 months, there were no significant differences between restorations polymerised with LED or halogen light. At the end of the study, 97% of the restorations showed sufficient results regardless of the employed LCU or composite. Globally, after 36 months, 56% of all restorations were assessed with code 0 (excellent) and 41% with code 1 (acceptable). In detail, excellent results (code 0) among the criteria surface quality; marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were assigned in 72, 70 and 69%. Conclusions For the current limitations in the clinical trial design, the results showed that LED-polymerisation is appropriate to ensure clinical success of direct posterior resin composite restorations in a range of 3 years. Clinical significance The choice of LCU has no significant influence on the clinical performance of posterior direct resin composite restorations within 3 years of wear