Undergraduate Endodontic Training and Its Relation to Contemporary Practice: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia.

Materials and Methods: An online questionnaire was developed and emailed to all dental schools in Saudi Arabia. This questionnaire was answered by the endodontic undergraduate program director. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: The response rate was 96.15%, which means twenty-five out of twenty-six dental schools participated in the study. The majority of the academic supervisors was endodontists (92%). The use of magnification and ultrasonic tips was not required by 84% and 76% of the dental schools, respectively. The main endodontic treatment techniques were the step-back technique and gates glidden for cleaning and shaping (76%) and cold lateral compaction for obturation (92%). Conclusions: The dental students were supervised by endodontic specialists and trained to use traditional endodontic methods. Encouraging dental educators to train students to use modern technology and equipment would probably improve their graduate clinical skills and performance.

The objectives and instructional design of undergraduate endodontic program: multicenter cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Identify the objectives and the instructional design of undergraduate endodontics in dental schools in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: The online questionnaire was developed from an original survey conducted in the United Kingdom. The questionnaire was modified for purpose of the study and the region of interest. Then it was directed and emailed to the undergraduate endodontic program directors in twenty-six dental schools in Saudi Arabia. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: The response rate was 96.15%. The number of credit hours for preclinical endodontic courses was up to four credit hours (84%). Students were clinically trained to do vital pulp therapies (92%), root canal treatment (100%), and root canal retreatment (68%). The majority of dental schools define the minimum clinical requirements (92%). Practical and clinical competency exams were used to evaluate students' performance (92% and 84% respectively). The students were trained to treat cases of minimal (52%) to moderate complexity (48%). Endodontic treatment consent and difficulty assessment form were used by 32% and 60% of dental schools respectively. There was no significant difference in the instructional design between public and private dental schools (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The endodontic undergraduate objectives were to graduate competent clinicians who acquired basic science of endodontics and who know their limitations as it is necessary for a safe general dental practice. The use of endodontic treatment consent and case difficulty assessment should be wisely considered in clinical training.