Enhanced personal protective equipment and dental students’ experience and quality of a restorative procedure in a simulated clinical setting

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of enhanced personal protective equipment (Enhanced_PPE) on student‐operator's experience and restorative procedure.MethodsStudent‐operators (N = 29 Year 3 dental students) performed Class II composite restorations (SimpliShade, Kerr) in typodont upper molars (OneDental) equipped with N95 respirators, full‐face shields, disposable headwear and gowns (Enhanced_PPE) or surgical masks, protective glasses/goggles and non‐disposable gowns (Standard_PPE) 2 weeks later. Cavity dimensions were measured on cone beam computed tomography images. The quality of composite restorations was assessed using selected FDI criteria and Vickers hardness. A questionnaire assessed the operators' discomfort, anxiety, confidence, ability to perform, and procedure outcome. Data were analyzed using paired t‐test and McNemar test (alpha = 0.05).ResultsStudent‐operators experienced greater discomfort and anxiety, reduced confidence and ability to perform, and rated the procedure as less satisfactory with Enhanced_PPE (p < 0.05). Differences in proximal box width were marginally significant (Enhanced_PPE 1.8 ± 0.4 mm, Standard_PPE 1.6 ± 0.3 mm) (p = 0.047). Other cavity dimensions were similar between groups (p > 0.05) as were restorations regarding surface luster, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, proximal contour, and contact (p > 0.05). There were no differences in the hardness of composite restorations (top p = 0.349, bottom p = 0.334).ConclusionsEnhanced_PPE led to student‐operator discomfort, anxiety, and reduced confidence, but did not impact the quality of Class II preparation and composite restorations versus Standard_PPE.