COMPARISON OF CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES PREDOCTORAL DENTAL IMPLANT EDUCATION.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the current status of Canadian predoctoral implant programs in terms of director demographics, curriculum characteristics and preferences in the techniques that are used to teach and carry out implant therapy. We compared the findings to analogous data recently acquired from dental schools in the United States. METHODS: A survey instrument was sent electronically to directors of predoctoral implant programs at all 10 accredited dental schools in Canada. RESULTS: All 10 dental schools responded to the survey. Program directors were affiliated with prosthodontics (90%) or oral surgery (10%) departments. Most Canadian institutions (90%) formally integrate their implant program into the third year of the curriculum. Clinical implant curricula include simulated exercises and direct patient care under supervision in 90% of predoctoral programs. Frequently taught restorative modalities include the posterior single-tooth implant crown (100%), mandibular implant-retained overdenture (90%), anterior implant-supported single crown (60%) and posterior 3-unit implant-supported bridge (50%). All programs reported the routine use of guided surgery planning software and surgical guides to aid in implant treatment planning. Preferred clinical protocols include implant-level impressioning (90%), use of open-tray impression copings (70%), custom abutment fabrication (60%), coronal fixation by screw-retention (60%) and use of titanium (100%) or zirconia (60%) abutments. Half of the program directors reported feeling that graduating students were adequately prepared to provide implant therapy on graduation. The demographics of Canadian directors of predoctoral implant programs were very similar to those of their counterparts in the United States. The largest divergences existed in clinical curriculum preferences and subjective perception of student preparedness in oral implantology on graduation. CONCLUSION: Greater homogeneity exists among Canadian dental schools with regard to predoctoral implant program curricula, compared with those in the United States. Further investigation is warranted to examine the reasons for Canadian program directors' current perceptions of lack of preparedness of graduating predoctoral students.

An overview of U.S. predoctoral dental implant programs and their directors.

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of current predoctoral implant programs in the United States, including curricular characteristics and clinical practices regarding implant therapy education and program directors' characteristics. An electronic survey was sent to predoctoral implant program directors of all 64 accredited U.S. dental schools; 52 of the 60 eligible programs responded, for a response rate of 87%. The responding program directors were primarily affiliated with either prosthodontics departments (44%) or restorative dentistry departments (40%). Structurally, 80.8% of the responding schools integrate their implant programs into the third year of the curriculum. Clinical implant therapy exercises reported were simulation exercises without direct patient care (90.4% of responding schools) and direct patient care under supervision (94.2%). The most frequently taught restorative modalities are posterior single-tooth implant crown (96.2%), mandibular implant-retained overdenture (88.5%), and anterior implant-supported single crown (61.5%). A majority (74.5%) of responding programs utilize analog surgical guide planning, while 25.5% reported use of digital guided surgery planning software. All schools in the Northwest and 66.7% in the South Central regions utilize custom abutments as the primary abutment design, while a majority of schools in the North Central (62.5%), Northeast (53.8%), Southwest (66.7%), and Southeast (80%) regions use stock abutments (p=0.02). Regional differences were significant with regard to fixation modality, with all the Northwest programs using screw retention and 90% of Southeast and 87.5% of North Central programs using cement retention (p=0.002). This study demonstrated that while institutions share program director and curricular similarities, clinical practices and modalities vary significantly by region.