The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of thermal and electrical tests to register pulp vitality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value were calculated by comparing the test results with a "gold standard". The thermal tests studied were a cold test (ethyl chloride) and a heat test (hot gutta-percha). For the electrical test, the Analytic Technology Pulp Tester was used. The examined teeth were 59 teeth with unknown pulpal status in need of endodontic treatment and 16 intact teeth, all with radiographically normal periapical bone structures. In total 46 teeth with vital pulps and 29 teeth with necrotic pulps were tested. This gave a disease prevalence of 39%. The gold standard was established by direct pulp inspection of the 59 teeth in need of endodontic treatment. In the 16 intact teeth the pulp was judged as vital. The number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN) and false negative (FN) test results was calculated for each method as compared to the gold standard. Based on this, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for each method. The sensitivity was 0.83 for the cold test, 0.86 for the heat test and 0.72 for the electrical test. The specificity was 0.93 for the cold test, 0.41 for the heat test and 0.93 for the electrical test. The positive predictive value was 0.89 for the cold test, 0.48 for the heat test and 0.88 for the electrical test, and the negative predictive value was 0.90 for the cold test, 0.83 for the heat test and 0.84 for the electrical test. This indicated that the probability of a non-sensitive reaction representing a necrotic pulp was 89% with the cold test, 48% with the heat test and 88% with the electrical test. It also indicated that the probability of a sensitive reaction representing a vital pulp was 90% with the cold test, 83% with the heat test and 84% with the electrical test.

This report provides general guidelines for the structure of a curriculum, followed by specific advice on the principles of learning and teaching, the process of restructuring and change leadership and management. It provides examples of several educational philosophies, including vertical and horizontal integration. It discusses the use of competence, learning outcomes, level of degree and assessment and provides a number of recommendations. It does not seek to be prescriptive of time allocation to disciplines within a curriculum. Although this report has been written primarily for those who will develop an undergraduate curriculum, the information may be sufficiently generic to apply to the recent development in graduate entry (‘shortened dental’ or ‘accelerated’) courses and to postgraduate degree planning and higher education certificate or diploma courses for other dental care professionals (auxiliaries). The report may have a European bias as progress is made to converge and enhance educational standards in 29 countries with different educational approaches – a microcosm of global collaboration.

It is often the case that good teachers just “intuitively” know how to teach. Whilst that may be true, there is now a greater need to understand the various processes that underpin both the ways in which a curriculum is delivered, and the way in which the students engage with learning; curricula need to be designed to meet the changing needs of our new graduates, providing new, and robust learning opportunities, and be communicated effectively to both staff and students. The aim of this document is to draw together robust and contemporaneous methods of teaching, learning and assessment that help to overcome some of the more traditional barriers within dental undergraduate programmes. The methods have been chosen to map specifically to The Graduating European Dentist, and should be considered in parallel with the benchmarking process that educators and institutions employ locally.