Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluation of Undergraduate Dental Students’ Opinions on the Use of Digital Versus Conventional Design in Prosthodontics
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluation of Undergraduate Dental Students’ Opinions on the Use of Digital Versus Conventional Design in Prosthodontics
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluation of Undergraduate Dental Students’ Opinions on the Use of Digital Versus Conventional Design in Prosthodontics
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluation of Undergraduate Dental Students’ Opinions on the Use of Digital Versus Conventional Design in Prosthodontics
2025
Overview
Background/Objectives: The integration of digital technologies into dental education is becoming increasingly important, particularly in prosthodontics, where digital design tools offer enhanced precision and efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate second-year dental students’ perceptions regarding conventional versus digital design in prosthodontics, assessing their theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and attitudes toward these approaches. Methods: A total of 141 dental students enrolled in Faculty of Dentistry from “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, participated in an online survey consisting of 19 questions evaluating their understanding, preferences, attitudes, and expectations regarding digital and conventional prosthodontic workflows. Additionally, students’ practical exam grades and task completion times for both conventional and digital design methods were evaluated. Results: Participating students reported sufficient understanding of theoretical concepts in both conventional (92.9%) and digital design (91.5%). A significant proportion (78.7%) felt confident in their practical skills for conventional design, while 78% expressed the same for digital design. Statistically significant correlations indicated that students who believed digital design could replace conventional methods associated digital design with greater accuracy (p = 0.020), predictability (p = 0.048), and sustainability (p = 0.032). Students who believed they had acquired enough skills in digital design responded more frequently that the time allocation for digital design by the university was sufficient (p < 0.001). Moreover, students scored significantly higher in digital design practical exams compared to conventional design (p < 0.001). Task completion times were also shorter for digital workflows, further supporting their efficiency. Conclusions: The findings suggest that students are highly receptive to digital technologies in prosthodontics, favoring digital workflows over conventional techniques. These results highlight the need for continued integration of digital tools into dental curricula to enhance students’ competency and prepare them for modern clinical practice.
