Design and evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed learning skills.

Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Slot, W. (2009). Design and evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed learning skills. Instructional Science. DOI 10.1007/s11251-008-9058-5In on-demand education, students often experience problems with directing their own learning processes. A Structured Task Evaluation and Planning Portfolio (STEPP) was designed to help students develop three basic self-directed learning skills: Assessing the quality of own performance, formulating learning needs, and selecting future learning tasks. A case study with 10 first-year students in the domain of hairdressing was conducted to evaluate STEPP’s use, usability, and perceived effectiveness. Results from student interviews show that usability and use are influenced by several factors. Students with low prior hairdressing skills, a weakly developed personal approach to direct their own learning, and an inclination to update STEPP as part of their weekly routine, use STEPP more frequently than students without these characteristics. Both the supervisor and students who frequently used STEPP perceived its use as a positive contribution to the development of self-directed learning skills. Furthermore, this study provides guidelines for the design of development portfolios in on-demand education

The effects of portfolio-based advice on the development of self-directed learning skills in secondary vocational education

Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Slot, W. (2009). The effects of portfolio-based advice on the development of self-directed learning skills in secondary vocational education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 439 - 460. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-009-9111-3This experimental study was designed to investigate whether supervision meetings, in which students receive specific advice on how to use a development portfolio to monitor their progress and plan their future learning, helps them to develop self-directed learning skills and improve their learning in the domain. In the first year of a hairdressing program in vocational education, supervision meetings were used to provide students with either specific advice or not. Students in the advice group (n = 21) formulated better learning needs, selected more suitable learning tasks, completed more practical assignments, and acquired more certificates than students in the feedback-only group (n = 22). Interviews also showed that students in the advice group appreciated the supervision meeting more and perceived them as more effective than students in the feedback-only group. Guidelines are provided for the use of development portfolios and the organization of supervision meetings in on-demand vocational education

Biebkracht: kenniscreatie in een professionele leeromgeving

Bitter-Rijpkema, M., Manche, A., Didderen, W., Meuleman, I., Verjans, S., Pannekeet, K., & Slot, W. (2011). Biebkracht: kenniscreatie in een professionele leeromgeving. OnderwijsInnovatie, 13(3), 17-24.De Samenwerkende Gelderse Bibliotheken hebben in 2010 Biebkracht.nl gelanceerd als 'e-kennisknooppunt van het Gelders Bibliotheeknetwerk'. Met Biebkracht is een kiem gelegd voor een virtueel kennisnetwerk ter ondersteuning van de professionals in de openbare bibliotheekbranche. Recente inzichten uit het onderzoeksprogramma Learning networks for professionals van CELSTEC van de Open Universiteit vormen mede basis voor het Biebkrachtconcept. In dit artikel een schets van de achtergronden van Biebkracht en een analyse van de eerste ervaringen van gebruikers.Samenwerkende Gelderse Bibliotheken, Biblioservice Gelderland

Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients with a maxillary overdenture:A sub-analysis of two prospective studies with a 10-year follow-up period

Background: Though studies on maxillary overdentures show satisfying results on implant survival, patient-related outcomes and prosthetic complications, the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases in this specific group of patients has hardly been reported. While the general patient-level prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are estimated at similar to 45% and similar to 20%, respectively, the risk of developing these diseases within a specific period is less dear. To fully appreciate the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, more long-term data on incidence of peri-implant diseases are needed. Purpose: The purpose of this sub-analysis of two prospective studies was to assess the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in fully edentulous patients with implant-retained maxillary overdentures during a 10-year follow-up period. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixteen patients treated with implant-supported maxillary overdentures were available from two clinical trials. Data on biological complications, clinical and radiographical parameters were collected for 106 patients at 5-year, for 82 patients at 10-year follow-up. The incidence was calculated following the consensus of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. Extent and severity then were calculated to enable an appropriate epidemiological description of peri-implantitis. Results: The patient-level incidence of peri-implant mucositis was 37.7% after 5 years and 64.6% after 10 years whereas the patient-level incidence of peri-implantitis was 10.4% after 5 years and 19.5% after 10 years. After 10 years, the extent of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is 52.8% and 43.8%, respectively. In terms of severity, 26.5% of all affected implants suffered from >3 mm bone loss and 17.6% of all affected implants was lost. Conclusion: Three of five fully edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary overdentures experience peri-implant mucositis after 10 years. Peri-implantitis occurs in one of five patients after 10 years. In spite of these incidence rates, implant survival remains high

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region:5-year results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare a four‐ and six‐implant maxillary overdenture after an observation period of 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty subjects with functional problems concerning their maxillary denture, who had ample bone volume in the anterior region to place four or six implants, were included and randomly assigned to either group. Implant and overdenture survival, clinical performance, marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Forty‐six patients completed the 5‐year follow‐up. One implant failed in the six implants group (99.2% survival) and none in the four implants group (100% survival). No overdentures had to be replaced during the observation period and the number of complications was limited. Clinical function was good, with no difference in clinical parameters between the groups. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.50 ± 0.37 and 0.52 ± 0.43 mm in the four and six implant group respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with functional complaints of their maxillary denture, bar‐supported overdentures on four implants in the anterior maxillary region were not inferior to overdentures supported by six implants after 5 years of function. Implant survival and patient satisfaction were high, clinical parameters favourable, bone loss and complications to the denture were minor in both groups (Clinical trial registration number: NTR2969)

Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 10-year randomized controlled trial results

Aim: To evaluate bar-supported maxillary implant overdenture treatment when supported by either four or six implants after 10 years. Materials and Methods: Edentulous subjects with maxillary denture complaints and ample bone volume to facilitate implants in the anterior region of the maxilla were planned for implant overdenture treatment, randomized to receive either four implants (n = 25) or six implants (n = 25) and subsequently evaluated after 10 years of function. Outcome variables included peri-implant bone-level changes, implant and overdenture survival, complications, presence of plaque, calculus and bleeding, degree of peri-implant inflammation, probing depth and patient satisfaction. Differences between the groups and between evaluation periods were tested with a Student's t-test. Results: Fourteen patients with totally 72 implants were lost to follow-up. Two patients from the six-implant group experienced implant loss (four implants), resulting in 96.1% implant survival in this group versus 100% survival in the four-implant group. Clinical, radiographical and patient-reported outcome measures did not differ statistically significant between the two groups. Patients from both groups were generally quite satisfied with the result after 10 years. Conclusions: Similar and favourable outcomes are seen in bar-supported maxillary overdentures on either four or six anteriorly placed implants after a 10-year evaluation period

Four or six implants in the maxillary posterior region to support an overdenture:5-year results from a randomized controlled trial

Objective To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes when providing maxillary overdentures on four bar- and six bar-connected implants placed in the posterior region during a 5-year follow-up period. Materials and methods Sixty-six fully edentulous patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and insufficient bone volume to allow implant placement were scheduled for a maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure with bone from the anterior iliac crest and randomized to receive either four or six implants in the posterior maxilla and four implants in the mandible. After 3 months of osseointegration, a bar-supported overdenture was constructed. Maxillary implant survival, overdenture survival, clinical scores, peri-implant bone height changes and patient satisfaction were assessed. Results Sixty patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Implant survival was 100% in the four-implant group and 99.5% in the six-implant group. No new overdentures had to be made in the four-implant group, and three new overdentures were made in the six-implant group due to excessive wear of the denture base and teeth (90.9% overdenture survival). Clinical parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Mean marginal bone loss compared to baseline was 0.58 +/- 0.51 mm in the four-implant group and 0.60 +/- 0.58 mm in the six-implant group, respectively. Overall, patient satisfaction improved significantly, but did not differ between groups. Conclusion Following a bilateral maxillary sinus floor elevation procedure, a bar-supported overdenture on four implants in the posterior maxillary region is not inferior to an overdenture supported by six implants after a 5-year evaluation period in patients with functional maxillary denture complaints and marked posterior resorption (Clinical trial registration number: NTR2969)