HCBE Faculty Presentations


Pedagogy Process Redesign Toward the Single-Sitting Restoration

Event Location / Date(s)

Long Beach, CA

Document Type


Presentation Date


Conference Name / Publication Title

2017 American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Annual Session & Exhibition


Educational Research This research follows prior survey research in which a significant discrepancy was identified regarding the outcome success measures between dental schools (n=62) and practitioners (n=10) regarding CAD/ CAM indirect restorations (CAD/CAM/IR). Dental schools focused primarily on quality standards, while practitioners also emphasized efficiency measures. The expectation is that dental schools’ pedagogy focus is on quality oral health outcomes. Dental schools’ missions are to develop capable practitioners, but if practitioners also depend on process efficiencies to support single-sitting restorations, then new dental graduates may not have the necessary efficiency for private practice. The investigators’ hypothesis was that pedagogy could be redesigned to accomplish efficiency (single-sitting restorations) without compromising current effectiveness outcomes. The aim of this study was to test the impact of efficiency considerations in CAD/CAM pedagogy on students at Nova Southeastern University College of Dental Medicine (NSU-CDM). Methods: After NSU-CDM IRB approval (2016-56-NSU) was obtained, students were randomly assigned to control and research groups (n=30 per group). The control group was taught using traditional methods (lectures and simulation lab demos), while the research group was taught using lean methods, a flipped classroom leveraging video training, and 4x design practice. Cycle times of the CAD/CAM/IR processes (preparation, scan, and design) and oral health quality were collected and analyzed. Results: The research group demonstrated faster preparation times for CAD/ CAM crowns (p<0.0001) and onlays (p<0.0001) than the control group. The research group also designed crowns and onlays significantly faster (p<0.0035) than the control group. There was no significant difference (p=0.5428) between groups with the scanning process. Regarding oral health measures, both groups performed quality preparations with average grades of 92-94%. Conclusion: Faster preparation times performed by the research group, taught using the CAD/CAM redesigned pedagogy process, were consistent with a two-hour appointment goal (single-sitting restorations). Insignificant differences in scan times may be a result of the research group’s performing six scans in the mannequin head versus the control group, which scanned on the desktop. Future research plans will follow CAD/CAM clinical efficiency for the two groups.