Prosthodontic program directors' perceptions regarding implant placement by prosthodontic residents: a 2004 survey conducted by the Educational Policy Subcommittee of the American College of Prosthodontists
- PMID: 18761568
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00350.x
Prosthodontic program directors' perceptions regarding implant placement by prosthodontic residents: a 2004 survey conducted by the Educational Policy Subcommittee of the American College of Prosthodontists
Abstract
Purpose: In 2004, a survey regarding implant placement by prosthodontic residents was conducted by the Educational Policy Subcommittee of the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP). The aim of the survey was to assess the current trends in implant curricula at advanced graduate prosthodontics programs in the United States and Canada and determine the issues surrounding surgical implant training for prosthodontic residents.
Materials and methods: The survey was mailed to the prosthodontic/maxillofacial prosthetic program directors of the 59 prosthodontic graduate programs in the United States and Canada in 2004. Of these, 27 program directors replied, yielding a response rate of 46%.
Results: Of the replying programs, 43% either required residents to place or offered the option to have residents place implants. Forty-four percent reported that residents participate by functioning as first assistants for some of their implant patients, 40% have a specific curriculum to train residents in implant placement, 50% reported not having any institutional barriers that prevent program directors from training prosthodontic residents in implant placement, 51% provide implant training using plastic jaws, and 66% of the programs required residents to observe implant surgery in the clinic before they are permitted to place implants. Of prosthodontic residents who treated implant-related patients, the majority treated 11 to 20 patients during their residency. In 2004, 40% of program directors were not trained in the placement of dental implants, and if they did have the implant training, the majority (82%) stated that the nature of their training was 1- to 3-day course(s).
Conclusions: This survey showed that implant dentistry has become an integral part of the postgraduate prosthodontic curriculum. The trends to incorporate implant placement into the postgraduate prosthodontic curriculum were already evident prior to 2004. To address the demand for implant treatment in patient care and enhance surgical implant knowledge, the ACP in 2005 added placement of implants to its Accreditation Standards for Advanced Specialty Education Programs in Prosthodontics.
Similar articles
-
Teaching implant dentistry in the predoctoral curriculum: a report from the ADEA Implant Workshop's survey of deans.J Dent Educ. 2006 May;70(5):580-8. J Dent Educ. 2006. PMID: 16687644
-
Ten-year survey of program directors: trends, challenges, and mentoring in prosthodontics. Part 1.J Prosthodont. 2011 Oct;20(7):587-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00741.x. Epub 2011 Jul 20. J Prosthodont. 2011. PMID: 21777337
-
A survey of program directors: trends, challenges, and mentoring in prosthodontics. Part 1.J Prosthodont. 2008 Jan;17(1):69-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00243.x. Epub 2007 Oct 8. J Prosthodont. 2008. PMID: 17927732
-
Teaching and assessment of implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate education: a European consensus.Eur J Dent Educ. 2009 Feb;13 Suppl 1:11-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00556.x. Eur J Dent Educ. 2009. PMID: 19281510
-
How will the introduction of primary certificate training programs change vascular surgery training programs?Semin Vasc Surg. 2006 Dec;19(4):218-21. doi: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2006.08.011. Semin Vasc Surg. 2006. PMID: 17178327 Review.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources