IADR Abstract Archives
Undergraduate Prosthodontics Curriculum: International Study of Current Teaching and Assessment Methods
Objectives: To investigate the contemporary teaching and assessments methods of various aspects of prosthodontics on an international setting.
Methods: Four semi-structured questionnaires were distributed to senior clinical academics who were responsible for teaching various aspects of prosthodontics. We included 142 dental schools from 12 countries and categorized them into five groups (UK/Ireland, Europe, US, Asia-pacific, and Saudi Arabia).
Results: For complete dentures, all respondent schools (40 dental schools from 10 countries) have dedicated preclinical courses except one UK school, which only has a clinical course. The minimum number of cases upon graduation varies from 0-30.
For removable partial dentures, (23 dental schools from 9 countries) the number of required treated cases varies from 1-8, either acrylic or cobalt-chromium, while seven schools teach flexible dentures. Six schools believe that students' competence is worse now compared to that ten years ago.
For fixed prosthodontics, all respondent dental schools (25 schools from 8 countries) have dedicated preclinical courses. On average, students gain 38 hours of hands-on experience of crown and conventional bridge preparations within the preclinical course. Eleven schools teach their students the use of digital workflow. Nine schools believe that students' competence is better now compared to that ten years ago, while six schools believe it is worse.
For dental implants (20 of 22 respondent dental schools from 8 countries) have a dedicated preclinical course. Eight schools have a preclinical surgical course. Three US dental schools have clinical requirements for dental implants prior to graduation. A wide variation in numbers of dental implant teaching hours (range: 2-80 hours) were seen across all respondent schools.
Conclusions: Divergence of undergraduate prosthodontics teaching and assessment is significant among dental schools from different countries. National and international efforts are encouraged to minimize this divergence.
Methods: Four semi-structured questionnaires were distributed to senior clinical academics who were responsible for teaching various aspects of prosthodontics. We included 142 dental schools from 12 countries and categorized them into five groups (UK/Ireland, Europe, US, Asia-pacific, and Saudi Arabia).
Results: For complete dentures, all respondent schools (40 dental schools from 10 countries) have dedicated preclinical courses except one UK school, which only has a clinical course. The minimum number of cases upon graduation varies from 0-30.
For removable partial dentures, (23 dental schools from 9 countries) the number of required treated cases varies from 1-8, either acrylic or cobalt-chromium, while seven schools teach flexible dentures. Six schools believe that students' competence is worse now compared to that ten years ago.
For fixed prosthodontics, all respondent dental schools (25 schools from 8 countries) have dedicated preclinical courses. On average, students gain 38 hours of hands-on experience of crown and conventional bridge preparations within the preclinical course. Eleven schools teach their students the use of digital workflow. Nine schools believe that students' competence is better now compared to that ten years ago, while six schools believe it is worse.
For dental implants (20 of 22 respondent dental schools from 8 countries) have a dedicated preclinical course. Eight schools have a preclinical surgical course. Three US dental schools have clinical requirements for dental implants prior to graduation. A wide variation in numbers of dental implant teaching hours (range: 2-80 hours) were seen across all respondent schools.
Conclusions: Divergence of undergraduate prosthodontics teaching and assessment is significant among dental schools from different countries. National and international efforts are encouraged to minimize this divergence.