A global perspective on implant education: Cluster analysis of the “first dental implant experience” of dentists from 84 nationalities

Dragan, Irina F; Pirc, Miha; Rizea, Cristina; Yao, Jie; Acharya, Aneesha; Mattheos, Nikos

doi:10.1111/eje.12426

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Universities are recommended to play ‘a leading role’ in implant education for GDPs and as ‘basic clinical education level’ programs (which do not currently exist as a formal training and qualification pathway) are developed, understanding why university‐based CPD might be less frequently attended than other sources of CPD would be useful. The lack of university‐led provision of education options at a level lower than formal postgraduate training was also similarly espoused in the recent study of global MOOC participants …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Basic implant training within the Australian initial dental degree programs since 2010 should include competency in some restorative procedures and has likely allowed newly graduated dentists the confidence to provide simple implant treatments immediately or soon after graduation. Similarly, the MOOC participant survey identified a cluster of younger implant providers beginning to perform treatment within their first 2 years of practice, who had attended less formal postgraduate training than others . At the other end of the spectrum, the possible reasons for 16% of GDP respondents in this survey not providing implant treatments (excepting the most recent graduates) and whether this trend continues warrant further research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Ongoing research should track the provision of implant treatments globally in terms of practitioner involvement and case volume, as the field of implantology and its education structure continue to evolve, which might provide information regarding outcomes and minimum training standards. A recent survey of 1015 implant‐providing participants of an implantology Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) had respondents from 84 countries and is one of the first to provide a global perspective of implant providers …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implant education patterns and clinical practice of general dentists in Australia

Cheung

Hopcraft

Darby

2019

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to understand trends in dentists' implant training attendance and correlation to treatment provision. Implant-specific oral hygiene instruction coverage in training programs was investigated. Methods: A cross-sectional web-survey of dentists registered in Australia was conducted. Respondents were asked about their background, implant training history and treatment provision. Results were analysed by implant provision characteristics and graduation decade. Results: Three hundred and three responses from general dental practitioners (GDPs) were received and analysed. The highest implant training levels attained post-graduation were postgraduate non-specialist qualification (7.9% of respondents), continuing professional development (CPD) (73.6%) versus none (18.5%), with differences between implant providers and non-providers (P < 0.001), different graduation decades (P < 0.001) and those restoring implants or performing surgery as well (P < 0.001). University-based CPD was attended less than dental association/society or implant company CPD. Non-providers were significantly less likely to recall implant oral hygiene instruction sources (P < 0.001). Most GDPs (74.9%) provided implant services, with younger GDPs beginning earlier after graduation. About 16% of respondents did not provide implants once established career-wise. Conclusions: Dentists might be providing implant treatments increasingly earlier in their careers. Respondents with more training were significantly more likely to perform more complex procedures, while implant training attendance trends varied by graduation decade.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implant education patterns and clinical practice of general dentists in Australia

Cheung

Hopcraft

Darby

2019

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, there is immense regional or geographical heterogeneity in implant education [12]; in different countries, the characteristics of the "basic," "intermediate," "advanced," and "specialist" stages differ [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual versus Jaw Simulation in Oral Implant Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Zhang

Gao

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform. Methods Eighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation. Results There was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P>0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90±3.70, 60.05±2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05±3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V(57.10±3.66) and J (56.89±2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students’ theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98±4.58; 71.85±4.67) and showed better implant precision.Conclusion Virtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students’ implantology achievements and training. We found that the V-J group performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.

show abstract

“…Currently, there is immense regional or geographical heterogeneity in implant education [15]; in different countries, the characteristics of the "basic," "intermediate," "advanced," and "specialist" stages differ [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual versus Jaw Simulation in Oral Implant Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Zhang

Gao

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This research aims to investigate the evaluation methods of teaching oral implant clinical courses and estimate the effectiveness of a virtual simulation platform.Methods: Eighty second- and third-year undergraduates in Lanzhou University were recruited and randomized to either three experimental groups or one control group. The subjects undertook theoretical examinations to test their basic level of knowledge after training in similarly unified knowledge courses. Each student group then participated in an eight-hour operating training session. An operation test on pig mandible was conducted, followed by a second theoretical examination. The assessment consists of three distinct parts: a subjective operating score by a clinical senior teacher, an implant accuracy analysis in cone-beam computed tomography (angular, apical, and entrance deviation), and comparison of the two theoretical examinations. Finally, students completed a questionnaire gauging their understanding of the virtual simulation.Results: There was no significant difference between the four groups in first theoretical examination (P > 0.05); the second theoretical scores of the V-J and J-V group (62.90 ± 3.70, 60.05 ± 2.73) were significantly higher than the first time (57.05 ± 3.92, P < 0.05), while no difference between the V (57.10 ± 3.66) and J (56.89 ± 2.67) groups was found. Thus, the combination of V-J was effective in improving students’ theoretical scores. The V-J and J-V groups had higher scores on operation (73.98 ± 4.58; 71.85 ± 4.67) and showed better implant precision.Conclusion: Virtual simulation education, especially with a jaw simulation model, could improve students’ implantology achievements and training. Currently study found that the V-J group may performed better than the J-V group in oral implant teaching.

show abstract

A global perspective on implant education: Cluster analysis of the “first dental implant experience” of dentists from 84 nationalities

Cited by 22 publications

References 67 publications

Implant education patterns and clinical practice of general dentists in Australia

Implant education patterns and clinical practice of general dentists in Australia

Virtual versus Jaw Simulation in Oral Implant Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Virtual versus Jaw Simulation in Oral Implant Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About