The goals of this study were to 1) evaluate dental students' perceptions of dental specialties, 2) identify factors that play an important role in students' decision to pursue specialty training or career choices, and 3) establish a baseline of students' perceptions of the dental ields with the best future in terms of salary, personal and patient quality of life, and overall impact on the dental profession. Surveys were distributed to 494 students at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine. Data were collected from 380 traditional four-year students and thirty advanced standing students. Chi-square tests, multivariate analysis, and logistic regressions were used to determine associations and independent contributions of student demographics to their perceptions of dental specialties and factors inluencing specialty training or career choices. Debt was a statistically signiicant factor (p<0.001) in choosing specialty training or career independent of gender, age, or class year. Enjoyment of providing care in a specialty or ield was identiied as the single most important factor in choosing a specialty career. Half of the respondents had decided not to specialize. Pursuing postdoctoral general dentistry training and private practice in general dentistry were the most commonly reported plans after completion of dental school. Suggestions are made for ways to inform students about specialty training.Dr.

In 2004, a survey of the deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. Out of the fifty-six, thirty-nine responded, yielding a response rate of 70 percent. Thirty-eight schools (97 percent) reported that their students received didactic instruction in dental implants, while one school (3 percent) said that its students did not. Thirty schools (86 percent) reported that their students received clinical experience, while five schools (14 percent) reported that theirs did not. Four schools (10 percent) did not respond to this question. Fifty-one percent of the students actually receive the clinical experience in restoring implants, with the range of 5-100 percent. Of those schools that provide clinical experience in restoring implants, four schools (13 percent) reported that it is a requirement for them, while twenty-eight schools (88 percent) reported that it is not a requirement for them. Three schools (9 percent) did not respond. The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants.

Predoctoral clinical RPD programs vary from school to school, yet a large percentage of schools agree on many topics.

Predoctoral implant dentistry educational programs vary from school to school, yet a large percentage of schools agree on certain topics.

Clinical complete denture predoctoral programs vary from school to school, yet a large percentage of schools agree on many topics. Only 55% of schools reported incorporating new educational materials such as the use of dental implants and treatment of patients with implant-retained overdentures at the predoctoral level. Sixteen percent are allowing students to graduate without a set number of required complete dentures as has traditionally been the case. Sixteen percent are using newer techniques such as injection molding and microwave processing technique in addition to the conventional processing technique.

Predoctoral implant dentistry educational programmes vary from school to school. Yet a large percentage of schools agree on certain topics, including the importance of including implant education in predoctoral dental programmes.

Predoctoral clinical complete denture educational programs agree on many aspects of final impression making, however, there is variability in their teachings regarding the impression philosophy and the materials used.

Information obtained from the responding laboratories included effectiveness of work authorization forms. There were some similar trends indicated by the large percentage of dental laboratories agreeing on lack of communication by the dentists as reflected by the work authorization forms.