Journal List > Korean J Phys Anthropol > v.28(3) > 1039183

Kim and Ha: Current Status and Suggestions for the Improvement of Gross Anatomy Education in Dental Hygiene Program

Abstract

Anatomy is an essential subject for dental hygienists. As such, in order to form academic systems for dental hygiene program, we cannot ignore research related to basic dental hygiene, which is related to the main competency of a dental hygienist. This research focused on the operation status of the curriculum related to gross anatomy of the head and neck led by the department of dental hygiene and was performed in order to propose a new direction regarding academics. This research analyzed the offering status of the anatomy curriculum using shared information, released by both the Association of Korean Dental Hygienist and the homepage website of the national dental hygiene, as a foundation. In addition, we conducted a survey of 21 (25.6%) professors out of 82 dental hygiene institutions in the nation. The fill-in survey was composed in order to obtain knowledge on each department's offering and operation system of the anatomy curriculum, general characteristics of professor and demand for the anatomy education. The SPSS 20.0 Program was used to analyze all of the materials with the exception of operation statuses of anatomic curriculums constructed via open questions. Nationally, the subject related to the gross anatomy was opened in Semester 2 during the first year 56.2% of the time, and the oral anatomy class recorded the highest percentage of 45.3%. The general trend of the professors who participated in this research was the highest recording of 85.0% for holders of dental hygiene license. Those who acquired doctoral degrees were found to be 17 individuals (85.0%) and 45.0% majored in health science. The operation methods of anatomic practices were revealed to be models, drawings, and audiovisuals while external practices failed to meet even the half-point of the study. The consensus opinion has indicated the need for a integrated education with clinical subjects, cadaver practices, developments of educational media, and standardization of anatomic terminology. Standardization of educational contents and systemization of practices are necessary for the improvement of anatomic studies of students studying dental hygiene. Cultivating anatomy specialists and sharing activities between academia are required for long-term development. We expect this research to contribute to overall quality improvement and the dental hygiene profession through the establishment of majors.

References

1. Papa V, Vaccarezza M. Teaching anatomy in the ⅩⅩⅠcentury: new aspects and pitfalls. Scientific World Journal 2013. 2013. 310348.
2. Korean Research Society of Oral Anatomy. Oral Anatomy: History of the anatomy. 1st ed.Seoul: Komoonsa;2014. p. 3–4. Korean.
3. Cho YS. Comparison of curriculums of dental hygiene education programs for B.S degree. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2005; 5:251–8. Korean.
4. Kim NH, Jang SO, Jun HS, Kim YN, Chung WG. Com-parison of ideas of dental hygiene education programs between Korea and America. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2006; 6:193–9. Korean.
5. Won BY, Jang GW, Hwang MY, Kim SA, Jang JH. Development of Korean standard dental hygiene curriculum proposal. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg. 2013; 13:1–12. Korean.
crossref
6. Older J. Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon. 2004; 2:79–90.
crossref
7. Green NA. Anatomy training for surgeons-a personal viewpoint. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1998; 43:69–70.
8. Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. Survey of clinicians'attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge ofmedical students. Clin Anat. 2005; 18:380–4.
9. Dolmans DH, De Grave W, Wolfhagen IH, van der Vleuten CP. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005; 39:732–41.
crossref
10. Prince KJ, Van De Wiel M, Scherpbier AJ, Can Der Vleuten CP, Boshuizen HP. A qualitative analysis of the transition from theory to practice in undergraduate training in a PBL-medical school. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2000; 5:105–16.
11. Korf HW, Wicht H, Snipes RL, Timmermans JP, Paulsen F, Rune G, et al. The dissection course-necessary and in-dispensable for teaching anatomy to medical students. Ann Anat. 2008; 190:16–22.
12. Chapman SJ, Hakeem AR, Marangoni G, Prasad KR. Anatomy in medical education. Ann Anat. 2013; 195:409–14.
13. Arráez-Aybar LA, Sánchez-Montesinos I, Mirapeix RM, Mompeo-Corredera B, Sañudo-Tejero JR. Relevance of human anatomy in daily clinical practice. Ann Anat. 2010; 192:341–8.
crossref
14. Drake RL. A unique, innovative, and clinically oriented approach to anatomy education. Acad Med. 2007; 82:475–8.
crossref
15. Yang YC, Jung WS, Lee JY, Lee JS, Cho BP, Choi JH, et al. Analysis of digital media and image delivery system of human anatomic dissection for medical students and clinicians. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2009; 22:61–70. Korean.
crossref
16. Kim CW, Kim JH, Park KH, Kim DJ, Hahn JH, Lee YI, et al. Development and application of e-learning human anatomy content for undergraduate students in health allied science. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2009; 22:47–59. Korean.
crossref
17. Chung WG, Kim EK, Choi EM, Jung JY, Kim NH, Jang SO, et al. A study on developmental direction of the dental hygiene discipline in Korea. Korean dental hygienists association, Korean association of dental hygiene professors. 2009. Korean.

Table 1.
Offering status of gross anatomy in dental hygiene curriculum in Korea
  N   %
School system (n = 82)
 3-year course 57   69.5
 4-year course 25   30.5
Type of course (n = 70)
 Required course 37   52.9
 Elective course 33   47.1
Offering semester (n = 73)
 1 grade 1 semester 25   34.2
 1 grade 2 semester 41   56.2
 2 grade 1 semester 5   6.8
 Others (1 grade 1, 2 semester) 2   2.7
Subject name of the gross anatomy in dental hygiene curriculum (n = 75)
 Oral anatomy 34   45.3
 Head and neck anatomy 13   17.3
 Oral anatomy and practice 17   22.6
 Head and neck anatomy and practice 11   14.7
The accrediting system   2.59±0.68 (1 to 4)  
Lecture time on theory   2.19±0.73 (1 to 4)  
Practical training time   0.57±0.76 (0 to 2)  

Mean± Standard Deviation (Minimum to Maximum)

Table 2.
Offering status of gross anatomy in dental hygiene curriculum in survey (n, %)
  Total 3-year course 4-year course p
Total 20 (100.0) 9 (45.0) 11 (55.0)  
Type of course
 Required course 13 (65.0) 5 (55.6) 8 (72.7) 0.423
Elective course 7 (35.0) 4 (44.4) 3 (27.3)  
Offering semester
 1 grade 1 semester 4 (20.0) 2 (22.2) 2 (18.2)  
 1 grade 2 semester 14 (65.0) 6 (66.7) 7 (63.6) 0.899
 Others 3 (15.0) 1 (11.1) 2 (18.2)  
Name of the gross anatomy in dental hygiene curriculum
 Oral anatomy 5 (23.8) 4 (44.4) 1 (9.1)  
 Head and neck anatomy 5 (23.8) 0 (0.0) 5 (45.5)  
 Oral anatomy and practice 4 (19.0) 4 (44.4) 0 (0.0) 0.017
 Head and neck anatomy and practice 5 (23.8) 1 (11.1) 4 (36.4)  
 Basic Dental Hygiene (Head and neck anatomy) 1 (4.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (9.1)  

by chi-square test

Table 3.
General characteristics of the instructor who teaches gross anatomy
  n %
Type of license
 Dental hygienist 17 85.0
 Others 3 15.0
Employment status
 Full-time 15 75.0
 Part-time 5 25.0
Final academic degree
 Doctor's degree 17 85.0
 Dentistry 7 35.0
 Health science 7 35.0
 Others 3 15.0
 Master's degree 3 15.0
 Health science 2 10.0
 Others 1 5.0
Major
 Dentistry 7 35.0
 Health science 9 45.0
 Others 4 20.0
Table 4.
Demand for standardization of gross anatomy education according to employment status of the instructor
  Total Full-time Part-time p
n % n % n %
Standardization of learning goal
 Agree 13 65.0 11 73.3 2 40.0 0.181
 Usually 4 20.0 3 20.0 1 20.0  
 Disagree 3 15.0 1 6.7 2 40.0  
Standardization of teaching hour              
 Agree 9 45.0 6 40.0 3 60.0 0.424
 Usually 7 35.0 5 33.3 2 40.0  
 Disagree 4 20.0 4 26.7 0 0.0  
Term normalization              
 Agree 18 90.0 15 100.0 3 60.0 0.053∗∗
 Usually 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  
 Disagree 2 10.0 0 0.0 2 40.0  
Alteration of teaching method              
 Agree 16 80.0 14 93.3 2 40.0 0.032∗∗
 Usually 4 20.0 1 6.7 3 60.0  
 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  
Integrated education with other subject              
 Agree 14 70.0 13 86.7 1 20.0 0.013
 Usually 5 25.0 2 13.3 3 60.0  
 Disagree 1 5.0 0 0.0 1 20.0  
Alteration of evaluation method              
 Agree 9 45.0 8 53.3 1 20.0 0.035
 Usually 7 35.0 6 40.0 1 20.0  
 Disagree 4 20.0 1 6.7 3 60.0  

by chi-square test

∗∗ Fisher's exact test

Table 5.
Demand for systematization of gross anatomy practice by school system
  Total 3-year course 4-year course p
n % n % n %
Practical training in School of Dentistry Agree
 Agree 16 80.0 5 55.6 11 100.0 0.047
 Usually 3 15.0 3 33.3 0 0.0  
 Disagree 1 5.0 1 11.1 0 0.0  
Sharing data with anatomist              
 Agree 20 100.0 9 100.0 11 100.0
 Usually 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  
 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  
Development of audiovisual materials              
 Agree 18 90.0 7 77.8 11 100.0 0.189∗∗
 Usually 2 10.0 2 22.2 0 0.0  
 Disagree 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0  

by chi-square test

∗∗ Fisher's exact test

TOOLS
Similar articles