Introduction: Dentistry schools have always used simulation training. Any professional education program that makes appropriate use of simulation can help trainees clarify their clinical abilities without running the risk of endangering patients while they are learning. The literature is currently debating whether teaching strategies work best in skill laboratories. The Peyton method, which is intended for a 1:1 student–teacher ratio, is one of these. To overcome this, the modified Peyton’s method was created, allowing each student to practice their specific skill at least once. Therefore, the objective was to assess and contrast the modified Peyton’s technique with traditional instruction for prosthodontics undergraduate students’ skill development. Materials and Methods: This prospective interventional study aimed to do an interventional trial in a dental context by taking alginate imprints utilizing the dental skill laboratory, and compare traditional training methods with the modified Peyton’s approach. A total of 68 students in the third BDS were split into two equal groups at random. Each group included 30 students. Group B was split up into six groups and instructed using a modified Peyton’s approach; Group A was evaluated using an objective structured practical examination (OSPE) and a posttest. Results: By the end of the trial, pupils who had been taught utilizing modified Peyton had improved to a score of 5 on the posttest and OSPE. When comparing the modified Peyton group’s mean OSPE score to the traditional teaching method, it was higher. The feedback obtained of the students taught using the modified Peyton’s group proved that this method helps in easy understanding of the skill. Conclusions: The knowledge gain seen through the pretest and posttest scores in the modified Peyton’s group was considerably higher when compared with the conventional mode of teaching. Thus, teaching pupils the modified Peyton’s approach will help them acquire new skills.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singhania et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: