Students' and tutors' perceptions of a deliberate simulated practice protocol using patient-specific virtual and 3D-printed teeth models: A pilot study

Objective: This pilot study aimed to investigate the perceptions of dental students and their tutors of a deliberate simulated practice using patient-specific virtual and three-dimensional (3D) printed teeth models. This is before they perform their first indirect posterior tooth restoration on their patients. Methods: Seventy-eight fourth-year dental students from the 2021 Comprehensive Clinic I course at the University of the Andes, Chile, were invited to participate in a deliberate practice protocol. This consisted of digitally scanning their patients’ teeth, printing the files three-dimensionally, and loading them into a virtual reality (VR) dental simulator to create patient-specific models. Subsequently, they practiced the same indirect posterior restorations on these models before performing them on their actual patients. Perceptions about students’ preparedness to perform tooth preparations before and after the protocol were collected from students and their tutors through surveys. Results: Sixty-three students (43 female) and six clinical tutors (all male) participated in the study. Before practicing with their patient-specific models, most students believed they had the knowledge, practical skills, and self-confidence to perform indirect restorations on their patients. However, after the protocol, most students thought their self-confidence increased and felt better prepared to treat their patients. Most students preferred the 3D-printed models over the VR models to practice but mentioned that it did not feel like drilling dental enamel. Tutors believed that participating students had higher self-confidence when treating their patients and were more autonomous. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that students and clinical tutors had positive perceptions of practicing with patient-specific virtual and 3D-printed teeth models before students performed their first indirect restorations on their patients

Comparison of digitally assessed quality of posterior crown preparations with and without previous practice on patient-specific 3D printed teeth models

INTRODUCTION: 3D-printing technology can provide customizable simulations, but its effects on patient care quality have not been well studied. This study aimed to assess the impact of practicing with patient-specific 3D-printed teeth models on the quality of 'patients' dental preparations performed by students transitioning to clinical training. Accordingly, the quality of posterior crown preparations was evaluated by objectively analyzing digital scans and grades in two groups: the study group, which practiced beforehand with patient-specific 3D-printed teeth models, and the control group, which did not practice with these models. METHODS: All seventy-eight fourth-year dental students who had just finished their fixed prosthodontics course at the simulation laboratory with training on phantom heads and without previous clinical experience in crown preparations were invited to participate in the study. sixty-eight agreed to take part and were randomly divided into a study group that practiced crown preparations on 3D-printed models of their own 'patient's teeth and a control group that did not practice with 3D-printed models and started their clinical work straightforward after simulation training. Students completed validated perception questionnaires on self-confidence and clinical skills before and after the protocol, which were compared using a chi-squared test. Crown preparations performed on 3D-printed models and then on patients were digitally scanned and objectively graded by prepCheck® software for critical parameters, such as undercuts, taper, and occlusion reduction. Non-parametric tests were used to compare preparations on 3D-printed models and on patients performed by the study group and those on patients made by the control group. RESULTS: Initially, both groups reported similar perceptions of self-confidence and clinical skills levels. The study group significantly improved both aspects after the protocol. Analysis of the scanned preparations demonstrated that the study group removed less tooth structure from actual patients than from the initial 3D-printed models. In contrast, the control group showed excess occlusal clearance in their patients compared to the study group. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing patient-specific 3D-printed teeth before performing procedures clinically appears to enhance preparation quality and minimize unnecessary tooth reduction in early clinical experiences

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac