Hello, Colleagues:
At first glance, the changes proposed by the Board are really scary. But taking a closer look, some of the changes MIGHT be to our advantage. Other people may see me wrong but here are my two cents' worth:
1. Using natural teeth will allow more deviation in the preps' reduction. Natural teeth do not have the same exact size and shape as ivorine teeth, and consequently, the candidates' preps will be individually different. Therefore, there would be not one ideal prep where any deviation of more than 0.2mm would mean failure.
"IF" the Board allows carious natural teeth to be used, then of course, we will also use our clinical judgement in preparing them. I don't know but, placing bases or building up walls might be allowed. This is wishful thinking, but it would be stupid for the Board to look for uniform, ideal preps in individual natural teeth, moreso in carious ones.
2. Scrapping the lab portion means doing away with a lot of things that could go wrong in this part of the exam. Things such as models accidentally breaking(this happens very often in the exam, where everyone is in panic in the last minutes, and then someone knocks your tray off your table), wax patterns that disintegrate when withdrawn, burnt hair, eyelashes, clothes etc(from the torch), funny looking cast mountings on the articulator...the list is endless. There are more steps in the lab than in the proposed composite prep/restoration!
3. Class III and IV composite are the easiest preps to do(unless they would require a dovetail for the Cl IV, which is unnecessary). I can't say the same thing with Cl II so this would require practice.
With the restoration however, I never tried etching and bonding melamine(the plastic material used to make ivorine teeth), and I doubt if it will work. So the Board might call on the use of natural teeth on this part of the exam. Or, if ivorine teeth were to be used, etching and bonding and "pulp protection" would be silly, so these steps would be skipped altogether, making things simpler.
4. For the fixed bridge preparations, parallelism of the walls of the abutments could be the prime criterion. This means that candidates can modify their preps to achieve this. Tell me how you can ideally mount natural extracted teeth on the Dentoform without twisting or tilting them. The parallelism would be screwed up in the first place even before the diamond touches the first tooth to be prepared. Therefore, we do away with the dreaded ideal prep measurements and go by what is clinically logical! Again, this is wishful thinking.
Generally, I think the criteria for the preps will be changed and will allow for more liniency if natural teeth were used.
But come to think of it, I was under the impression that the California Board Exams should reflect the current trends and techniques as thought in California Dental Schools. Do these schools require students to use natural teeth to practice on now?
The bad side I think is that we need to use water spray for natural teeth as grinding them generates more heat. Another is the use of rubber bands to simulate closing of the jaws...Hmmm. Next, they'd be doing away with "direct vision" too and would make us use mouth mirrors.
Of course the Board might have other things in mind as they discuss about these proposed changes, and they might device more plans to make life more difficult for us. I pray not. Join me.
Ivorinedust
-----------------------------------------------------
Apolonia, relieve my toothache!!!
