medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2014, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2014; 18 (2)

Molecular biology protocols assessment in the Biochemistry subject of the National School of Dentistry, National University of Mexico (UNAM)

Gutiérrez-Venegas G, Sánchez-García S, Golzarri-Moreno A, Ramírez PA, Hernández BC

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 120-127
PDF size: 269.93 Kb.


ABSTRACT

For over a decade, experimental teaching of Biochemistry as a subject has been reinforced as part of the School of Dentistry, National University of Mexico (UNAM) curriculum. This aim has been achieved with the help of laboratory practices. The project of strengthening biochemistry teaching, entailed the purpose of achieving, for the student, the comprehension of biochemistry and molecular biology basic concepts and thus improving their professional skills. With this purpose in mind, three molecular biology experimental protocols have been introduced in the scholastic cycle 2011-2012. Objective: To analyze in the 2011-2012 generation, the opinion survey sustained on molecular biology protocols. Materials and methods: In an blind and voluntary basis, an opinion survey was applied to first year students of the National School of Dentistry. In this survey, six aspects of molecular biology protocols were assessed. The six aspects were: learning, participation, planning, group interaction, evaluation and infrastructure. Standard deviation means were obtained (± SD) in order to assess instrument reliability. Internal consistency of the survey and evaluation percentage of each reactive were equally obtained. To achieve this aim, the SPSS Windows version 12 was used. Averages of different categories were as follows: learning 71.1% (± 12.5), evaluation: 78.6% (± 17.1); infrastructure: 81.8% (± 17.9%). Global assessment revealed a 78.1 ± 10.3. Internal consistency of the survey presented a Crombach alpha of global 0.889. Survey of analysis results suggested that contemporary training for dentistry students must combine the didactic experience of laboratory work along with classroom activities. Infrastructure must nevertheless be potentiated as well as the student’s skills to interpret results.


REFERENCES

  1. Zajtchuk R. New technologies in medicine: biotechnology and nanotechnology. Dis Mon. 1999; 45: 449-495.

  2. Slavkin HC. Implications of pharmacogenomics in oral health. Pharmacogen J. 2002; 2: 148-151.

  3. Bayne SC. Why are the next steps in biomaterials research so difficult? Commentary. J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33: 631-633.

  4. Thesleff I. Developmental biology and building a tooth. Quintess Int. 2003; 34: 613-620.

  5. Gaengler P. Evolution of tooth attachment in lower vertebrates to tetrapods. In: Teaford MF, Smith MM, Ferguson MW et al. Development, function and evolution of teeth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. pp. 173-185.

  6. Ainamo A, Ainamo J. The dentition is intended to last a lifetime. Int Dent J. 1984; 2: 87-92.

  7. Kirchheiner J, Brockmoller J. Clinical consequences of cytochrome P450 2C9 polymorphisms. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 77: 1-16.

  8. Plotkin SA. Vaccines: past, present and future. Nature Med. 2005; 11: S5-S11.

  9. Garcia-Godoy F. Tissue engineering. Dent Clin North Am. 2006; 50: XIII–XIV.

  10. Cotrim AP, Mineshiba F, Sugito T, Samuni Y, Baum BJ: Salivary gland gene therapy. Dent Clin North Am. 2006; 50: 157-173.

  11. Patel V, Leethanakul C, Gutkind JS. New approaches to the understanding of the molecular basis of oral cancer. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2001; 12: 55-63.

  12. Zimmermann BG, Park NJ, Wong DT. Genomic targets in saliva. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2007; 1098: 184-191.

  13. Wright JT, Hart TC. The genome projects: implications for dental practice and education. J Dent Educ. 2002; 66: 659-671.

  14. Li Y, Denny P, Ho CM. The Oral Fluid MEMS/NEMS Chip (OFMNC): diagnostic and translational applications. Adv Dent Res. 2005; 18: 3-5.

  15. Debnath AK. Application of 3D-QSAR techniques in anti-HIV-1 drug design – an overview. Curr Pharm Des. 2005; 11: 3091-3110.

  16. Ratner BD. Replacing and renewing: synthetic materials, biomimetics, and tissue engineering in implant dentistry. J Dent Educ. 2001; 65: 1340-1347.

  17. Shuler CF. Emerging scientific advances: how do they enter dental curricula and the profession? J Calif Dent Assoc. 2005; 33: 805-809.

  18. DePaola D, Howell H, Baker CG. Research and the dental student. Eur J Dent Educ. 2002; 6: 45-51.

  19. Lantz MS, Chaves JF. What should biomedical sciences education in dental schools achieve? J Dent Educ. 1997; 61: 426-433.

  20. Baum BJ. Can biomedical science be made relevant in dental education? A North American perspective. Eur J Dent Educ. 2003; 7: 49-55.

  21. Iacopino AM. The influence of “new science” on dental education: current concepts, trends and models for the future. J Dent Educ. 2007; 71: 450-462.

  22. American Library Association. Information literacy competency standards for higher education, 2006. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html (last accessed 9 April 2007).

  23. Elmborg J. Critical information literacy: implications for instructional practice. J Acad Librar. 2006; 32: 192-199.

  24. Ford P, Seymour G, Beeley JA, Curro F, Depaola D, Ferguson D, Finkelstein M, Gaengler P, Neo J, Niessen L, Oktay I, Park BK, Wolowski A, Claffey N. Adapting to changes in molecular biosciences and technologies. 2008: 12 (Suppl. 1): 40-47.

  25. Astin AW. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

  26. Goodsell A, Meher M, Tinto V. Collaborative learning: a sourcebook for higher education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, University Park, PA. 1992.

  27. Schulte AG, Pitts NB, Huysmans MCDNJM, Splieth C, Buchalla W. European core curriculum in cariology for undergraduate dental students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2011; 15 (Suppl. 1): 9-17.

  28. Snyman WD, Kroon J. Vertical and horizontal integration of knowledge and skills – a working model. Eur J Dent Educ. 2005; 9: 26-31.

  29. Cowpe J, Plasschaert A, Harzer W, Vinkka-Puakka H, Walmsley AD. Profile and competences for the graduating European dentist - update 2009. Eur J Dent Educ. 2010; 14: 193-202.

  30. Iacopino AM. The influence of ‘‘new science’’ on dental education: current concepts, trends, and models for the future. J Dent Educ. 2007; 71: 450-462.

  31. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com