Search

The aim of this study was to assess nationwide trends in the exposure of dental students to periodontal and implant surgical procedures and to evaluate the potential factors that influence these clinical experiences. A 19-item questionnaire was sent to all 64 directors of predoctoral periodontics in U.S. dental schools. In addition to gathering information on the percentage of students who perform surgical periodontics or implant placement procedures in each program, data on student research groups, periodontics residency programs, and periodontics faculty practices were collected. A total of 33 responses were received, for a response rate of 51.5%. Among the responding institutions, 97% and 45.5% allowed dental students to perform periodontal and dental implant placement surgeries, respectively, although only 26.4% and 15.2% of the dental class ended up performing periodontal and dental implant placement surgeries, respectively. Crown lengthening was the most commonly reported (84.8%) periodontal surgical procedure performed by dental students. A negative correlation was found between the presence of a periodontics residency program and dental students' placing dental implants, while the size of the residency program positively correlated with dental students' placing dental implants. Overall, a wide variation in the exposure of dental students to periodontal and dental implant placement surgical experiences was found. Future surveys should assess clinical procedures performed in other special-ties to gain a broader picture of the experience students are gaining in these areas.

The aim of this study was to analyze information about advanced education programs in prosthodontics (AEPPs) collected in American Dental Association (ADA) surveys on advanced dental education from 2006-07 to 2016-17. Data recorded included number of AEPPs and information on program directors, applicants, and enrollees in AEPPs. The results showed that, from 2006 to 2016, there was an increase in the number of AEPPs and enrollment of prosthodontic residents, and the number of applicants per program more than doubled. Despite these increases, steps are needed to increase the number of underrepresented minority residents in prosthodontics. Also, a periodic survey of prosthodontic residents to identify their goals, experiences during training, and career plans could benefit the specialty by providing more insight into the future prosthodontic workforce.

The aims of this study were to measure the research productivity of directors of U.S. advanced education in prosthodontics programs (AEPP) and to identify associations between the directors' publication metrics and professional characteristics. A list of AEPP directors was obtained from the American College of Prosthodontists website in December 2015. Information on gender, academic rank, and highest degree was collected from the institutional website for each individual. Citation databases (Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for each director's h-index and i10-index (both indexes are based on numbers of citations of the author's articles) and total numbers of publications and citations. The search identified 50 AEPP directors. The majority were male and had a primary appointment at a university. Most held the rank of associate professor or professor and held both DDS and MS degrees. The mean h-index and i10-index of all directors were 6.32±6.97 and 6.84±10.77, respectively. Their mean numbers of publications and citations were 24.60±31.21 and 288.40±625.97, respectively. The analysis showed that the program directors affiliated with a university had significantly higher mean values for all indexes than those of non-university-affiliated program directors. Professors had productivity metrics significantly higher than those of other ranks in all measures of research productivity.

The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify differences between general dentists and prosthodontists regarding appointments, treatment time, impressions, and preoperative diagnostic data in teaching predoctoral clinical fixed prosthodontics. Electronic dental records (n=356) of patients treated at one dental school in academic year 2012 were randomly selected for review to obtain the following data: faculty and student demographics, number of appointments and treatment time from preparation to cementation, number of impressions made, completion of oral disease control treatment (ODCT), and presence of preoperative periapical radiographs and diagnostic casts. The results showed that ODCT was completed in 78%, preoperative radiographs were present in 76%, and diagnostic casts made in 53% of the cases reviewed. There was no statistically significant difference in number of appointments, treatment time, or number of final impressions when students were staffed by general dentists or prosthodontists. When students were supervised by multiple faculty members, there was generally an increase in treatment time and number of appointments and final impressions. Although this study found no statistically significant differences between general dentists and prosthodontists regarding the criteria evaluated, the results suggest that faculty development and calibration are needed to ensure ODCT is completed and preoperative radiographs are present prior to initiating fixed prosthodontic procedures.

The annual turnover of dental school faculty creates a varying number of vacant budgeted positions from year to year. The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) conducts an annual survey to determine the status and characteristics of these vacant faculty positions. The number of vacant budgeted faculty positions in U.S. dental schools increased throughout the 1990s, with a peak of 417 positions in 2005-06. Since that time, there has been a decrease in the number of estimated vacancies, falling to 227 in 2010-11. The 2008-09 to 2010-11 faculty vacancy surveys explored these decreases, along with information relevant to the number and characteristics of dental faculty vacancies, including data on the distribution of full-time, part-time, and volunteer faculty, reasons for faculty separations, and sources of new faculty.

The proportion of claims filed for specific dental procedures (ADA codes # 05110, 05120, 03320, 03330, 04260, 02150) between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2004 by Texas general practitioners participating in a preferred provider network was compared to the proportion of these procedures performed by students graduating from the three Texas dental schools during the same period. Analysis of the data revealed that Texas dental students provide class two amalgam restorations in permanent teeth (02150) at approximately the same frequency as Texas general practitioners. Both groups provide periodontal osseous surgery (04260) at an extremely low frequency (<0.02% of total procedures). Bicuspid endodontic procedures (03320) were performed at a slightly higher frequency by students (0.43% of all procedures) than by general practitioners (0.36% of all procedures), and molar endodontic procedures (03330) were performed at a slightly higher frequency by general practitioners (0.65%) than by students (0.36%). Significant discrepancies between the groups were noted for the two complete denture procedures (05110, 05120). Students provided these procedures at frequencies fifteen times (05110) and twenty-five times (05120) greater than general practitioners. Dental schools should use data provided by scope of practice analyses to help determine an appropriate breadth and depth for their educational programs.

In 1995, a survey requesting information about the utilization of certain prosthodontic techniques was mailed to 3,544 graduates of a midwestern dental school. Responses were received from 1,455 alumni, representing a 41 percent return rate. In general, the results are consistent with international and national trends and show significant disparity in the utilization rates of certain procedures between general dentists and prosthodontists, as well as a disconnect between what is taught in the undergraduate dental educational program and what is applied in practice. For example, while prosthodontists typically apply what was taught in their educational program, utilization rates of general dentists for the facebow was 29.64 percent; the custom tray 68.48 percent; border molding 58.67 percent; altered casts 24.10 percent; custom posts 49.29 percent; prefabricated posts 67.54 percent; and semi-adjustable articulators 50.64 percent. While no solutions to this disconnect are offered the authors do pose important questions that must be addressed by the dental educational community.