The Effect and Suggestions for Operation of Cadaver Dissection Program for Dental Hygiene Students

Da-Hye Kim

doi:10.11637/kjpa.2015.28.4.213

Journal List > Korean J Phys Anthropol > v.28(4) > 1039189

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim: The Effect and Suggestions for Operation of Cadaver Dissection Program for Dental Hygiene Students

Original Article

Korean J Phys Anthropol 2015;28(4):213-221.

Published online: 20 April 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.2015.28.4.213

The Effect and Suggestions for Operation of Cadaver Dissection Program for Dental Hygiene Students

Da-Hye Kim

Department of Dental Hygiene, Division of Health Science, Dongseo University

Correspondence to: Da-Hye Kim (Department of Dental Hygiene, Division of Health Science, Dongseo University) E-mail: dahye1124@gdsu.dongseo.ac.kr

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Cadaver dissection is an effective method for learning structure and function of the human body. However, division of health science is conducting an anatomy lecture lean toward theory because it is impossible to operate their own practice program. This study was performed to propose a customized anatomy practice program plan that reflects needs of students majoring dental hygiene. A survey was conducted to 138 students majoring dental hygiene at D university. We used a structured questionnaire to analyze general characteristics of a subject, opinions about cadaver dissection, educational method and the demands of a program. Then we acquired frequency, mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient value. Furthermore, we also performed independent t-test and variance analysis (ANOVA) by using R program (version 3.2.2). A majority of students responded positively in items of necessity, satisfaction and comprehension of cadaver dissection. Dissection using cadaver marked a highest response (48.6%) among the methods of anatomic education. As for an appropriate time required for education, 72 students (52.2%) responded 30 minutes for an orientation time and 46 students (33.3%) for an observation time. Students also responded head and neck area and skeletal system to be the top priority for observation. In order to operate systemic cadaver dissection program, practical institutions should provide an active system. Contents of a necessity and procedure of cadaver donation should be included in preliminary education, with a thoughtful consideration to minimize negative psychological response of students during educational process. In observation, we should organize program focused on head and neck region and a three-dimensional structure of skeletal system. We expect our study to provide useful information in composing cadaver dissection program for dental hygiene students in the future.

Keywords: Department of dental hygiene, Cadaver dissection program, Suggestions for operation

References

1. Yoo HH, Song CH, Han EH, Kim HT. The effect of education program of cadaver dissection for the paramedical students. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2014; 27:145–54. Korean.

2. Kim HJ, Lee SO, Kim BW, Kim JY, Kim JW, Moon WS, et al. Health & medical law. 1st ed.Seoul: Medical education publishing co.;2014. p. 300. Korean.

3. Older J. Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon. 2004; 2:79–90.

4. Coulehan JL, Williams PC, Landis D, Naser C. The first patient: reflection and stories about the anatomy cadaver. Teach Learn Med. 1995; 7:61–6.

5. Matsuno Y, Komiyama M, Kadota T, Kawabata Y, Ono Y, Sato K, et al. The questionnaire research to co-medical students on human-dissection course at Chiba university. Acta Anatomica Nipponica. 2002; 77:77–80.

6. Biasutto SN, Caussa LI, Criado del Río LE. Teaching anat-omy: cadavers vs. computers? Ann Anat. 2006; 188:187–90.

7. Kim WS. The effect of observation program of cadaver dissection for the paramedical students. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2012; 25:77–86. Korean.

8. Dinsmore CE, Daugherty S, Zeitz HJ. Student responses to the gross anatomy laboratory in a medical curriculum. Clin Anat. 2001; 14:231–6.

9. Vasan NS. Management and delivery of the gross anatomy curriculum with decreased course time: the importance of structured teaching activities. Med Educ. 2003; 37:479–80.

10. Johnson JH. Importance of dissection in learning anatomy: personal dissection versus peer teaching. Clin Anat. 2002; 15:38–44.

11. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. Teaching anat-omy without cadavers. Med Educ. 2004; 38:418–24.

12. Pereira JA, Pleguezuelos E, Merí A, Molina-Ros A, Molina-Tomás MC, Masdeu C. Effectiveness of using blended learning strategies for teaching and learning human anato-my. Med Educ. 2007; 41:189–95.

13. Kim DI. Questionnaire survey analysis on necessity of cadaveric dissection for nursing students: in scope of nursing students and professors. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2015; 28:119–25. Korean.

14. Kim DH, Ha JE. Current status and suggestions for the improvement of gross anatomy education in dental hygiene program. Korean J Phys Anthropol. 2015; 28:167–74. Korean.

15. Lee YH, Lee YM, Kwon SW, Park SH. Reactions of first-year medical students to cadaver dissection and their perception on learning methods in anatomy. Korean J Med Educ. 2011; 23:275–83. Korean.

16. Kwon SS, Han SJ. A study of the increasing rate and the state of sex ratio in each specific fields of medical technicians in Korea. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2006; 6:65–77. Korean.

17. Ministry of Government Legistration of Korea: Law for Medical Technicians etc. No. 10851, 2012.1.15 enforced. Korean.

18. Son IA, Son MJ, Jeong GB. The effect of education in anatomy using cadavers to the paramedic students. J of Contents Association. 2013; 13:341–7. Korean.

19. Mc Garvey MA, Farrell T, Conroy RM, Kandiah S, Monk-house WS. Dissection: a positive experience. Clin Anat. 2001; 14:227–30.

20. Horne DJ, Tiller JW, Eizenberg N, Tashevska M, Biddle N. Reactions of first-year medical students to their initial en-counter with a cadaver in the dissecting room. Acad Med. 1990; 65:645–6.

Table 1.

General characteristics of questionnaire respondents

Characteristics	Category	N	%
	Female	131	94.9
Sex	Male	7	5.1
		138	100.0
	18	4	2.9
	19	37	26.8
	20	41	29.7
	21	27	19.6
Age (year)	22	22	15.9
	23	5	3.6
	24	1	0.7
	25	1	0.7
		138	100.0
	Freshman	39	28.3
	Sophomore	42	30.4
Grade	Junior	34	24.6
	Senior	23	16.7
		138	100.0
	Yes	102	73.9
I learned biology I in high school.	No	36	26.1
I studied Anatomy before		138	100.0
	Yes	11	8.0
	No	127	91.0
learning in college.		138	100.0
I made an extra effort of learning	Yes	10	7.2
anatomy with extra-curricular	No	128	92.8
material.		138	100.0

Table 2.

Student's response to cadaveric dissection^∗

Category	Mean± S.D.^†
Cadaveric dissection is necessary.	2.05±0.65
Cadaveric dissection is helpful in anatomy and major.	1.91±0.66
I am generally satisfied with cadaveric dissection.	1.86±0.65
I am satisfied with the practice time.	2.24±0.77
I am satisfied with the cadaveric dissection curriculum.	2.01±0.60
After cadaveric dissection, I feel a sense of achievement.	2.28±0.79
After cadaveric dissection, I feel a change of attitude in a dignity of man, life and death and life ethics.	2.01±0.95
Cadaveric dissection increase understanding the structure of the human body.	1.91±0.75
I'm willing to participate in cadaveric dissection again.	1.79±0.81

^∗ Questionnaire items were composed of five-level Likert scale.

^† S.D.: Standard Deviation

Table 3.

Differences of student's response to cadaveric dissection by general characteristics^∗

Category	Age		I learned biology I in high school.		I studied Anatomy before learning in college.		I made an extra effort of learning anatomy with extra-curricular material.
Category	t-Statistics	p-value	t-Statistics	p-value	t-Statistics	p-value	t-Statistics	p-value
Necessity	1.322	0.222	1.112	0.270	–2.133	0.055	–2.806	0.017
Major assistance	–0.406	0.697	–0.84	0.405	–1.857	0.089	–3.195	0.008
Satisfaction	–2.310	0.053	0.597	0.553	–0.98	0.348	–2.184	0.053
Satisfaction (time)	–0.936	0.379	–0.576	0.567	–0.672	0.516	–0.888	0.397
Satisfaction (curriculum)	–1.489	0.180	0.143	0.887	–1.649	0.128	–2.418	0.036
Sense of achievement	–0.056	0.996	–1.041	0.303	–2.143	0.053	–1.290	0.227
Change in perception	–0.576	0.582	–1.70	60.093	–0.684	0.507	0.298	0.772
Understanding	–1.784	0.120	–0.312	0.756	–0.01	0.992	–0.538	0.603
Intention of participating	–0.262	0.801	0.617	0.539	0.346	0.736	–0.505	0.625

^∗ by independent t-test

Table 4.

Differences of student's response to cadaveric dissection by grade^∗

Category	Mean				F-Statistic	p-value
Category	Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	F-Statistic	p-value
Necessity	1.97	1.98	2.24	2.04	1.045	0.379
Major assistance	1.85	1.86	1.97	2.04	0.552	0.648
Satisfaction	1.90	1.67	2.09	1.83	2.309	0.084
Satisfacion (time)	2.10	2.17	2.59	2.09	3.012	0.036
Satisfaction (curriculum)	1.95	1.98	2.24	1.87	1.993	0.123
Satisfaction (curriculum) Sense of achievement	1.952.21	1.982.24	2.242.36	1.872.39	1.9930.403	0.1230.751
Change in perception	1.74	1.93	2.21	2.22	2.074	0.112
Understanding	1.85	1.90	1.94	2.00	0.186	0.906
Intention of participating	1.67	1.71	1.88	2.00	0.911	0.441

^∗ by analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Table 5.

Opinions on anatomic teaching methods

Opinion	Category	N	%
	Lecture	26	18.8
	Anatomic practice	86	60.9
Best useful methods for anatomic study	Anatomic textbooks	13	9.4
Best useful methods for anatomic study	Lecture handouts	10	7.2
	Peer group discussion	5	3.6
		138	100.0
	Cadaveric dissection	67	48.6
	Plastic model observation	37	26.8
Best useful methods for cadaveric dissection	Drawing	11	8.0
Best useful methods for cadaveric dissection	Audiovisual documentation	21	15.2
	Etc. (group activity)	2	1.4
		138	100.0
	Increasing hours of lecture	7	5.1
	Increasing hours of dissection	52	37.7
	More using Audiovisual documentati	on 40	29.0
Teaching methods and materials helpful for better studying	More using Audiovisual documentati More detailed handouts	4018	29.013.0
	Offering clinical situations or cases	21138	15.2100.0

Table 6.

Teaching method preferences according to the grade^∗

Category	Freshman		Sophomore		Junior		Senior		Chi-square value	p-value
Category	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	Chi-square value	p-value
Lecture	6	15	11	26	5	15	4	17
Anatomic practice	27	69	20	48	22	65	15	65
Anatomic textbooks	3	8	3	7	3	9	4	17	15.33	0.224
Lecture handouts	1	3	7	17	2	6	0	0
Peer group discussion	2	5	1	2	2	6	0	0

^∗ by Chi-square test

Table 7.

Opinions on cadaveric dissection programs

Opinion	Category	N	%
	15 min	36	26.1
Orientation time before observation (Mean: 34 min)	30 min	72	52.2
	60 min	24	17.4
	Over 90 min	6	4.3
		138	100.0
	60 min	26	18.8
Observation time (Mean: 103 min)	90 min	45	32.6
Observation time (Mean: 103 min)	120 min	46	33.3
(Mean: 103 min)	Over 120 min	21138	15.2100.0

Table 8.

Prioritzation of cadaveric dissection

Region	Mean rank
Head and neck	1.43
Back	3.29
Thorax	3.73
Abdomen	4.08
Pelvis	4.22
Limb	4.28
System	Mean rank
Skeletal system	2.19
Muscular system	2.90
Nervous system	3.64
Circulatory system	4.36
Lymphatic system	4.85
Respiratory system	5.33
Digestive system	5.91
Genitourinary system	6.83

TOOLS

Similar articles