A Comparison of Models for Teaching Suturing and Surgical Skills to Dental Students

Learning suturing skills is an important area of the undergraduate curriculum and ideally requires realistic and anatomically accurate surgical training models to prepare students for treating patients. Little is currently understood regarding which model might be perceived by students to be the best or which might most effectively facilitate their learning. The aim of this study was to compare four teaching models: a tabletop silicon dental model, a restricted access tabletop model, a traditional phantom head mounted model, and a Thiel cadaver. Student preferences were explored for each of the models. Following lecture and video-based teaching 67 fourth-year students attended a practical suturing teaching session followed by the second session more focused on the experience of cutting and suturing mucoperiosteal flaps. Forty-six students (67%) gave online anonymous feedback on the first session. The majority (95%) felt prepared to place a simple interrupted suture on a patient, and 88% felt confident to do so. Twenty-eight students (40%) provided feedback on the second session with 82% agreeing that they were prepared to cut a mucoperiosteal flap and 48% felt confident to do this for a patient. The cadaver model was rated as the best of the four models for both suturing and mucoperiosteal flap skills. These results support its use for teaching students to suturing and surgical skills. However, despite this teaching student-rated confidence to cut and suture flaps for a patient remains poor

A Comparison of Models for Teaching Suturing and Surgical Skills to Dental Students

Learning suturing skills is an important area of the undergraduate curriculum and ideally requires realistic and anatomically accurate surgical training models to prepare students for treating patients. Little is currently understood regarding which model might be perceived by students to be the best or which might most effectively facilitate their learning. The aim of this study was to compare four teaching models: a tabletop silicon dental model, a restricted access tabletop model, a traditional phantom head mounted model, and a Thiel cadaver. Student preferences were explored for each of the models. Following lecture and video-based teaching 67 fourth-year students attended a practical suturing teaching session followed by the second session more focused on the experience of cutting and suturing mucoperiosteal flaps. Forty-six students (67%) gave online anonymous feedback on the first session. The majority (95%) felt prepared to place a simple interrupted suture on a patient, and 88% felt confident to do so. Twenty-eight students (40%) provided feedback on the second session with 82% agreeing that they were prepared to cut a mucoperiosteal flap and 48% felt confident to do this for a patient. The cadaver model was rated as the best of the four models for both suturing and mucoperiosteal flap skills. These results support its use for teaching students to suturing and surgical skills. However, despite this teaching student-rated confidence to cut and suture flaps for a patient remains poor

The Impact of a 1-Year COVID-19 Extension on Undergraduate Dentistry in Dundee:Final Year Students’ Perspectives of Their Training in Oral Surgery

Background: The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dental education prompted the Scottish Government to fund an additional year to the dental course to ensure that the students had the necessary clinical experience. The aim of the study was to better understand the final year student perceptions of this extension on their oral surgery experience at the University of Dundee. Methods: This mixed methods study consisted of an anonymous online questionnaire and a focus group. Results: Forty-one students (69.3%) completed the questionnaire and ten students participated in the focus group. Thirty-six (88.8%) students agreed that the oral surgery teaching provided sufficient knowledge to undertake independent practice. All of the students felt confident to carry out an extraction, and the majority of them (n = 40, 95%) felt confident to remove a retained root, however, their confidence with surgery was lower. Conclusion: The extension gave the students sufficient experience in oral surgery to gain confidence in clinical skills and an appropriate level of knowledge in preparation for the next phase of their career. Most of the students agreed that the extension was necessary and beneficial. This cohort graduated with more oral surgery experience than any of the students did in the previous 4 years from Dundee and with experience that was comparable with the students at other schools in the pre-COVID-19 era

Activation of Akt at T308 and S473 in alcohol, tobacco and HPV-induced HNSCC:is there evidence to support a prognostic or diagnostic role?

BACKGROUND: Tobacco, alcohol and HPV infection are associated with increased risk of HNSCC. However, little is known about the underlying signaling events influencing risk. We aimed to investigate the relationship between these risk factors and Akt phosphorylation, to determine prognostic value. METHOD: VEGF-positive HNSCC biopsies, with known HPV status, were analyzed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for Akt, phosphorylated at residues S473 and T308. Comparisons between the tissues were carried out using a Mann–Whitney U test. Associations between the variables and continuous immunohistochemical parameters were evaluated with general linear models. Patient characteristics and pAkt IHC score were analyzed for possible association with overall survival by Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry revealed that cancer patients had significantly higher levels of pAkt T308 than S473 (P < 0.001). Smoking and alcohol were found to be independent risk factors for Akt phosphorylation at T308 (P = 0.022 and 0.027, respectively). Patients with tumors positive for HPV or pAkt S473 had a poorer prognosis (P = 0.005, and 0.004, respectively). Patients who were heavy drinkers were 49 times more likely to die than non-drinkers (P = 0.003). Patients with low pAkt T308 were more likely to be HPV positive (P = 0.028). Non-drinkers were also found to have lower levels of pAkt T308 and were more likely to have tumors positive for HPV than heavy drinkers (P = 0.044 and 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study suggests different mechanisms of carcinogenesis are initiated by smoking, alcohol and HPV. Our data propose higher phosphorylation of Akt at T308 as a reliable biomarker for smoking and alcohol induced HNSCC progression and higher phosphorylation of Akt at S473 as a prognostic factor for HNSCC

Comparison of machine learning algorithms for the prediction of five-year survival in oral squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM Machine learning analyses of cancer outcomes for oral cancer remain sparse compared to other types of cancer like breast or lung. The purpose of the present study was to compare the performance of machine learning algorithms in the prediction of global, recurrence-free five-year survival in oral cancer patients based on clinical and histopathological data.METHODS Data were gathered retrospectively from 416 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. The data set was divided into training and test data set (75:25 split). Training performance of five machine learning algorithms (Logistic regression, K-nearest neighbours, Naïve Bayes, Decision tree and Random forest classifiers) for prediction was assessed by k-fold cross-validation. Variables used in the machine learning models were age, sex, pain symptoms, grade of lesion, lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension, perineural invasion, bone invasion and type of treatment. Variable importance was assessed and model performance on the testing data was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and F1 score.RESULTS The best performing model was the Decision tree classifier, followed by the Logistic Regression model (accuracy 76% and 60%, respectively). The Naïve Bayes model did not display any predictive value with 0% specificity.CONCLUSIONS Machine learning presents a promising and accessible toolset for improving prediction of oral cancer outcomes. Our findings add to a growing body of evidence that Decision tree models are useful in models in predicting OSCC outcomes. We would advise that future similar studies explore a variety of machine learning models including Logistic regression to help evaluate model performance.</p

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers:Surgical treatment

Background: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early‐stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011. Objectives: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease‐free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies. Main results: We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons. Future research may change the findings as there is only very low‐certainty evidence available for all results. Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow‐up made meta‐analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease‐free survival. The meta‐analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease‐free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease‐free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta‐analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive. Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease‐free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence. One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations. One trial comparing positron‐emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes. Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials. The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Authors' conclusions: Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta‐analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease‐free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease‐free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET‐CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments