# Student Reflections on Prosthodontics Patient Encounters: Reversible and Irreversible Procedures: Following Diagnostic Interactions

## TL;DR

This study explores how dental students reflect on patient encounters involving reversible and irreversible procedures, aiming to improve their critical thinking and learning.

## Contribution

The study introduces a reflective exercise to foster critical thinking in prosthodontics students through structured self-reflection on patient interactions.

## Key findings

- 100% of students responded to all four open-ended questions, with over 90% judged relevant and appropriate.
- Responses to reversible procedures focused on patient tolerance, while irreversible procedures focused on teeth.
- The exercise successfully engaged students in reflective thinking and revealed patterns in their responses.

## Abstract

Conceptualizing the next patient interaction is done intuitively by the master practitioner for every patient encounter. The project analyzes student reflections following interactions with patients involving reversible and irreversible procedures and follows a project analyzing reflections with patients involving diagnoses. The main purpose was for the student to ask key questions of every patient for the rest of their career. A secondary purpose was to analyze patterns of responses.

Forty students in Spring 2024 completed the Prosthodontics exercise mostly with reversible or irreversible procedures with the remainder being for examinations. Four open‐ended questions were 1) differentiation from the ideal, 2) desired outcome(s), 3) self‐capabilities, and 4) consequences/prognosis.

Note that, 100% of students responded to all four questions, and over 90% of responses were judged by faculty to be relevant to and appropriate for the theme of each respective question. The authors categorized responses into patterns for each question. The exercise elicited different kinds of thought experiences for students reporting on examinations, reversible procedures, and irreversible procedures. For Questions #1, 2, and 4, for reversible procedures, the focus was more on patient tolerance/acceptance of the appliance. For irreversible procedures, the focus was more on the teeth. Responses were first categorized qualitatively. The difference was statistically significant for Questions #1 and 2. For Question #3, no notable difference was found between reversible and irreversible procedures.

The main purpose was met by engaging students in reflective responses to the four questions. With little literature on the subject, responses to these questions, tell us how students are learning. The collective intuition of students can be converted into a learning guide (learning guidance). The project follows an emulation model for critical thinking.