Search

Background: In 2002 and 2009, two consensus statements-one from a symposium in Canada and one from England-were issued that recommended that the first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible should be the two implant-retained mandibular overdenture (IRMOD). The authors conducted a survey to determine if, in 2011, U.S. academic prosthodontic experts' opinions were aligned with those in the two consensus statements., Methods: The authors administered a Delphi method survey to an expert panel of 16 nationally representative academic prosthodontists to determine if there is consensus on the first-choice standard of care for an edentulous mandible between the IRMOD and a conventional mandibular complete denture (CD). Consensus agreement was defined as a 70 percent agreement level among the panelists., Results: The panel attained consensus favoring the IRMOD for nine of the 10 parameters assessed-retention, stability, speech, masticatory efficiency, comfort while eating soft foods and hard foods, confidence in intimate situations, satisfaction and self-esteem. The exception was esthetics for which only a majority (51-69 percent) favored the IRMOD., Conclusions: The panelists reached consensus that they would recommend an IRMOD instead of a CD as the first-choice standard of care for patients who are healthy or have mild systemic disease, but not for patients with severe systemic disease., Clinical Implications: Surveyed academic prosthodontists recommend an IRMOD as the first choice standard of care when restoring an edentulous mandible of a healthy patient or a patient with mild systemic disease.

The routine evaluation of teaching effectiveness is important in improving faculty, departmental, and institutional efforts. There are three main categories of assessments: those performed by students, peers, and self. Although each category is independently valid, a collection of data from all three categories leads to a more comprehensive outcome and a creation of a triangulation model. The purpose of this study was to identify commonly used methods of assessing teaching effectiveness and to suggest the use of a triangulation model, which has been advocated in the literature on performance assessment as an optimal approach for evaluating teaching effectiveness. A twelve-question survey was sent to all U.S. dental schools to identify evaluation methods as well as to find evidence of triangulation. Thirty-nine out of fifty-seven schools responded. The majority of the schools used student evaluations (81 percent) and peer reviews (78 percent). A minority of schools reported using self-evaluations (31 percent). Less than one in five dental schools reported using all three strategies to achieve triangulation (19 percent). The three most commonly used evaluation methods ("performed routinely") were all in the student evaluation category. Less than half of the schools routinely evaluated clinical teaching effectiveness by any means (42 percent). In conclusion, dental schools should implement a triangulation process, in which evaluation data are obtained from students, peers, and self to provide a comprehensive and composite assessment of teaching effectiveness.