Skip to main content

Table 4 Average values (SD) of statements according handling (S1, S2), treatment time (S3), root surface roughness/root destruction (S4, S6) and effectiveness (S5) by the participants of the digitized training program (DTP) versus conventional training program (CTP) for Gracey curettes (GRA) and for sonic scaler (AIR)

From: Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training

Statements

DTP concept (Graetz et al. [11])

CTP concept

Differences between groups of training concepts

S1 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler is more difficult/easier to learn than the scaling with curettes (1 = very difficult to 5 = very easy)

3.53 (0.73)

3.47 (0.75)

p = 0.91

S2 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler is less tiring than the scaling with curettes (1 = a lot more tiring to 5 = a lot less tiring)

3.45 (0.81)

4.16 (0.59)

p = 0.003

S3 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler is more time-saving/less time-saving than scaling with curettes: 1 = extremely time-saving to 5 = very time-consuming

3.21 (0.96)

3.00 (1.08)

p = 0.38

S4 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler is more or less gentle on the substance than scaling with curettes (1 = very gentle to 5 = very substance demanding)

2.66 (0.88)

3.11 (0.97)

p = 0.10

S5 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler is more effective/less effective than scaling with curettes regarding the whereabouts of hard deposits and biofilm (1 = highly effective to 5 = very ineffective)

3.24 (0.86)

3.05 (0.83)

p = 0.51

S6 Today, I think that scaling with sonic scaler produces rougher/less rough tooth surfaces than scaling with curettes (1 = very rough surface to 5 = very smooth surface)

3.21 (0.96)

2.84 (0.93)

p = 0.24

  1. Average values (SD) and p-values