Contemporary Concepts and Techniques of Teaching Posterior Palatal Seal among Dental Colleges of Karnataka: A Cross-sectional Survey ZC09-ZC14
Faculty of Dental Sciences, MS Ramaiah Memorial Hospital Gnanagangothri Campus, New BEL Road MSR Nagar, M.S.R.I.T. Post, Bengaluru-560054, Karnataka, India.
Introduction: Since literature provides various schools of thought to achieve Posterior Palatal Seal (PPS) in a maxillary denture, it becomes essential to know the techniques dominating in our curriculum presently.
Aim: To determine the prevalence of concepts and also the need for standardisation in establishing PPS among dental colleges of Karnataka.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive survey was conducted among teaching faculty of Department of Prosthodontics with varied teaching experience across the dental colleges of Karnataka. A pre-tested questionnaire containing ten close ended questions was distributed to 230 faculty members with MDS qualification in Prosthodontics via e-mail. The faculty responses were divided into three groups based on teaching experience: Group 1 (2-7 years), Group 2 (7-12 years) and Group 3 with more than 12 years of teaching experience. The Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test was used to compare the overall differences in the responses by the study participants; and Independent Chi-Square test to compare the differences in the responses based on teaching experience of the study participants. A value of p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results: The most common method taught for locating vibrating line was Phonation-Nose Blowing-Fovea Palatini (46.0%). Two-line concept of vibrating line was taught (77%) more commonly, where the termination of maxillary denture is on posterior vibrating line (58%). Currently, Boucher’s conventional method without master cast scoring (63%) was the most favoured method to record the seal. This was true mainly with Group 1 (81.9%) and Group 2 (66.7%). In contrast, Group 3 faculty largely advocated Boucher’s conventional technique along with master cast scoring (70%). Overall most of the faculty members (66.5%) did not make the students score the postpalatal area. This was mainly seen in faculty belonging to Group 1 (81.9%) and Group 2 (69.7%). Bulk of Group 3 faculty (75%) taught scoring of the master cast. A large portion of the faculty (60.0%) recommended standardisation in the methods of teaching PPS which was mainly backed by Group 2 (77.3%) and Group 1 (61.7%).
Conclusion: This survey indicates that among dental colleges of Karnataka, a majority of faculty of Prosthodontics prefer Boucher’s conventional method without master cast scoring (63%) to achieve maxillary PPS. Nevertheless, teaching concepts differed based on faculty experience. It is emphasised that teaching methods should be standardised and include unambiguous techniques.