Evaluation of a predoctoral implant curriculum: does such a program influence graduates' practice patterns?

Area of Science:

• Dental Education
• Implant Dentistry
• Surgical Training

Background:

• Most US dental schools include didactic implant education.
• Fewer than half offer laboratory instruction, and few allow clinical implant placement.
• Curriculum crowding limits extensive implant training for dental students.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess if dental students' laboratory and clinical implant experience correlates with their future practice patterns.
• To compare implant practice patterns of graduates with and without formal undergraduate implant training.

Main Methods:

• A survey was distributed to graduates (1988-1997) from a dental school with a formal implant curriculum (Creighton) and a control school lacking one.
• The survey collected data on implant practice patterns, including restoration, surgical placement, referrals, and continuing education.
• Statistical analysis was used to compare the practice patterns between the two graduate groups.

Main Results:

• Creighton graduates were more than twice as likely to restore dental implants (56% vs. 23%) compared to the control group.
• Graduates with formal training performed more surgical implant placements and referred more patients to specialists.
• Trained graduates also pursued more continuing education hours in implant dentistry.

Conclusions:

• Undergraduate implant dentistry education, particularly with clinical experience, significantly enhances its adoption in general dental practices.
• Even didactic and laboratory components, without clinical experience, led to a significant increase in graduates incorporating implant dentistry.
• Formal training in implant dentistry during dental school positively impacts future practice patterns.