title: The effectiveness of using a patient simulator to teach light-curing skills.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The authors evaluated the effectiveness of using a patient simulator (MARC Patient Simulator [MARC PS], BlueLight analytics, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada), to instruct dental students (DS) on how to deliver energy optimally to a restoration from a curing light. Five months later, the authors evaluated the retention of the instruction provided to the DS.
  
  
  METHODS
  Toward the end of the DS' first year of dental education, the authors evaluated the light-curing techniques of one-half of the class of first-year DS (Group 1) before and after receiving instruction by means of the patient simulator. Five months later, they retested DS in Group 1 and tested the remaining first-year DS who were then second-year DS and who had received no instruction by means of the patient simulator (Group 2). They gave DS in Group 1 and Group 2 MARC PS instruction and retested them. The authors also the tested fourth-year DS (Group 3) and dentists (Group 4) by using the MARC PS before giving any instruction by means of the MARC PS.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there were no significant differences in the ability of dentists and DS to light cure a simulated restoration before they received instruction by means of the patient simulator (P = .26). The results of two-way ANOVA and Fisher protected least significant difference tests showed that after receiving instruction by means of the patient simulator, DS delivered significantly more energy to a simulated restoration, and this skill was retained. There were no significant differences between DS in Group 1 and Group 2 after they had received instruction by means of the patient simulator.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The abilities of dentists and DS to light cure a simulated restoration were not significantly different. Hands-on teaching using a patient simulator enhanced the ability of DS to use a curing light. This skill was retained for at least five months.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The education provided to dentists and DS is insufficient to teach them how to deliver the optimum amount of energy from a curing light. Better teaching and understanding of the importance of light curing is required.
authors.affiliation: Dr. Price is a professor and the head, Fixed Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Address correspondence to Dr. Price at Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada, rbprice@dal.ca.
authors.forename: Richard B
authors.initials: RB
authors.lastname: Price
authors.forename: Howard E
authors.initials: HE
authors.lastname: Strassler
authors.forename: Hannah L
authors.initials: HL
authors.lastname: Price
authors.forename: Sachin
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Seth
authors.forename: Chris J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000627:therapeutic use; D055117:Curing Lights, Dental; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods; D004497:Education, Dental / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008348:Manikins; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins
keywords: Dental restoration; dental education; dental students; irradiance; light curing; resin-based composites