Search

Background/objective: Advancements in augmented reality (AR) technology enable developers to create augmented reality books (AR Books). AR Books can show interactive 3D objects and multimedia content to the user. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a developed AR Book on the theoretical and practical abilities in the administration of local anesthesia of the inferior alveolar nerve block. Methods: An exclusive AR Book was developed based on Chapter 14, Handbook of Local Anesthesia, seventh edition, Stanley F. Malamed, which enabled students to use their book (printed or electronic) as an AR Book. Forty dental students were randomly divided into control and study groups. In the control group, students were asked to use regular books, while in the study group, students were instructed to use interactive AR Books. All students took the written exam, scoring 0 to 10. Also, the administration of mandibular local anesthesia was evaluated in students. The level of concentration during the study, the written exam score, the practical score, the success rate of local anesthesia, and the needed time for injection were compared between the two groups. Results: There was a significant difference in the level of concentration during the study (p < 0.001), practical skill score (p = 0.037), and needed time for injection (p = 0.040) between the two groups. Conversely, the success rate of local anesthesia was almost similar (p = 0.705). Although the written exam score was higher in the study group than in the control group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.414). Conclusion: Using AR Books can engage students and help them to remain focused during the study. AR Books may be beneficial in enhancing the practical abilities of dental students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several measures have been implemented to minimize the side effects of impacted third molar (M3) removal including the use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). This study compared the effects of three modifications of PRF (leukocyte-PRF [L-PRF], advanced-PRF [A-PRF], and advanced-PRF plus [A-PRF +]) on the side effects of impacted M3 removal. This double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Oral Surgery Department of Kashan University between September 2022 and May 2023 on patients undergoing mandibular impacted M3 removal. Exclusion criteria were age over 30, local inflammation and infection, medication usage, and systemic disease. The independent variable was the PRF product grouped into four categories (control, L-PRF, A-PRF, and A-PRF+). Study subjects were randomly distributed among the four groups. The main outcome variables were postoperative sequelae including measures of soft tissue healing, pain, analgesic use, alveolar osteitis, trismus, and swelling. Subjects were assessed at baseline and on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 postsurgery. Age, sex, duration of surgery, and side of surgery were the covariates. Changes at different time points were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons were performed if significant. P values ≤.05 were considered statistically significant. The sample consisted of 64 subjects (16 per group). All three modifications of PRF yielded significantly better soft tissue healing index than the control group on days 2, 3, 7, and 14 postoperatively (P >.05). A-PRF and A-PRF + had significantly better healing index than L-PRF on the third day (P =.02, P =.01). All the study groups significantly reduced visual analog scale pain score than the control group on days 1, 2, and 3. A-PRF and A-PRF + had significantly lower visual analog scale scores than L-PRF on the second day (P =.003, P =.02). No significant difference was found in maximum mouth opening during follow-up sessions (P =.2). Study groups had less facial swelling on days 2 and 3 than the control group (P <.05). L-PRF, A-PRF, and A-PRF + can improve postoperative outcomes after M3 removal but may not impact trismus. A-PRF and A-PRF + may be more effective than L-PRF in promoting soft tissue healing and reducing pain. A-PRF and A-PRF + have comparable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]