Paediatric dentistry in outreach settings: an essential part of undergraduate curricula?

Introduction:  Although placements in primary care settings remote from dental schools are becoming a common feature of undergraduate dental curricula, little evidence is available regarding the experience of paediatric dentistry gained in this way.
Materials and methods:  Treatment logs relating to salaried primary care placements undertaken by the Class of 2007 at Cardiff University School of Dentistry were examined, particular attention being paid to paediatric-specific procedures.
Results:  Forty-nine logs relating to placements undertaken in South East Wales and 51 relating to those in North Wales were retrieved. In South East Wales, 90% of students gained experience of primary tooth restoration, 61% carrying out primary endodontics. Sixty-three percent of students undertaking placements in South East Wales and 69% of those placed in North Wales gained experience of primary tooth extraction under local anaesthesia. All but three students gained experience of administering inhalation sedation.
Discussion:  The findings of this study should go some way towards reassuring those who have expressed concern that recruitment difficulties within dental schools inevitably lead to increasing numbers of students qualifying without clinical experience of paediatric dental procedures considered to be within the remit of a newly qualified dental practitioner. However, there remains wide variation in the breadth and depth of experience of individual students and it is still possible for some students to graduate without what might be considered core experience in paediatric dentistry.
Conclusion:  Salaried primary care settings are ideally placed to provide students with experience of paediatric-specific procedures. Clinical education in paediatric dentistry should, therefore, incorporate the strengths of dental school and placement education.     

Special Needs Dentistry: perception,attitudes and educational experience of Malaysian dental students

A compromised oral health condition amongst patients with special health care needs (SHCN) has been associated with the reluctance and shortage of skills of dental professionals in managing such patients. Lack of training and experience at the undergraduate level are reported barriers to the provision of care for this patient cohort. Undergraduate education therefore, plays an important role in producing professionals with the knowledge, skills and positive attitude in treating patients with SHCN. This study aims to determine the level of knowledge, comfort and attitudes of Malaysian undergraduate dental students towards caring for patients with SHCN, as well as their perception on education in this field. A self‐administered questionnaire was administered in the classroom style to final year undergraduate dental students in Malaysian public dental schools. Most students were aware of Special Needs Dentistry (SND) as a specialty after being informed by academic staff. The majority of the students demonstrated poor knowledge in defining SND and felt uncomfortable providing care for such patients. They perceived their undergraduate training in SND as inadequate with most students agreeing that they should receive didactic and clinical training at undergraduate level. A high percentage of students also expressed interest in pursuing postgraduate education in this area of dentistry despite the lack of educational exposure during undergraduate years. The study supports a need for educational reform to formulate a curriculum that is more patient‐centred, with earlier clinical exposure in various clinical settings for students to treat patients with special health care needs, applying the concept of holistic care in a variable clinical condition.     

Infant oral health education in U.S. dental school curricula.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine didactic and clinical curricular content about infant oral health in predoctoral pediatric dentistry programs. METHODS: 54 dental school departments of pediatric dentistry were surveyed about: 1) curricular content devoted to teaching infant oral health (IOH) and age of first dental visit; 2) methods used to teach IOH and hours dedicated to each method; and 3) whether students receive hands-on experiences with infants. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of programs teach students to see infants at 12 months of age or younger. Curricular time ranged from 15 minutes to 13 hours (mean = 2 hrs, 20 min, median = 1 hr, 45 min). All programs used lectures; other formats included handouts, demonstration and small group seminar. Fifty percent provide clinical experiences, albeit they are not uniform for all students. One-fourth provides uniform, clinical hands-on experiences with infant oral examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate varying degrees of acceptance about teaching infant oral health in our dental schools.     

RCT of the effects of block absence for outreach placements on dental students' finals grades

Undergraduate dental curricula are being supplemented with primary care placements requiring periods away from the dental school. These absences may impact negatively on students' other studies.
Objective:  To compare the effect of outreach placement and traditional hospital-based training alone on students' final examination scores. Existing primary care placements in northern England about one year from students' qualification.
Subjects and Methods:  Analysis of secondary outcomes in a randomised controlled trial with students' final examination marks being compared on qualification. To reduce Type I error only 4 of 24 available scores were considered and multiple testing correction applied. Five-week block outreach placements for 25 of 49 students. Honours awarded and examination scores for children's dentistry, overall clinical work and theory.
Results:  Groups' final exam scores were similar: children's dentistry – outreach 64.9 (SD 2.1), hospital-based 65.0 (3.0); overall clinical work 58.3 (3.4) cf 60.7 (4.8) and theory 54.6 (3.5) cf 56.5 (4.0). The numbers of students awarded honours (outreach 1, hospital 4) showed no significant difference (Fisher's exact text P  = 0.19).
Conclusion:  Dental outreach training involving several weeks' absence from the school had no negative impact on students' finals scores.     

Geriatric dentistry education in European dental schools

As the numbers of elderly adults continue to grow within European populations, the need for dental students to be trained in the management of geriatric patients becomes increasingly important. Many dental schools have developed training programmes in geriatric dentistry in response to the changing oral health needs of older adults. The purpose of this on-line survey was to identify the current status of geriatric dentistry education in European dental schools. A questionnaire relating to the teaching of geriatric dentistry was posted on the Internet, and 194 dental schools in 34 European countries were invited to participate. Data from completed questionnaires were submitted to the investigators via email from 82 schools in 27 countries (42% response rate). Thirty-six percent of schools offered a specific geriatric dentistry course that included didactic teaching or seminar groups, 21% taught geriatric dentistry by means of organised presentations in the curriculum, and 36% taught the subject by occasional lectures. 7% of schools did not teach geriatric dentistry at all. A clinical component to the geriatric dentistry curriculum was reported by 61% of schools and 18% reported operating a specific geriatric dentistry clinic within the school. Of those providing clinical geriatric dentistry training, it was provided within the school in 45% of cases, with a further 29% of schools providing training both within the school and at a remote location. Seven percent of schools operated a mobile dental clinic for treating geriatric patients. Twenty-eight percent of schools had a geriatric programme director or a chairman of a geriatric section and 39% indicated that they plan to extend the teaching of geriatric dentistry in the future. Geriatric dental education has clearly established itself in the curricula of European dental schools although the format of teaching the subject varies widely. It is of concern that geriatric dentistry was not taught at all in 7% of schools. No data are available concerning whether or not geriatric dentistry is taught in the 58% non-responding schools.     

Does exposure to dental education change the perceptions of Nigerian students to dentistry as a profession?

Aim:  To assess any effect of exposure to dental education and training on the perception and acceptance of dentistry by dental students at a Nigerian dental school.
Participants and methods:  The study was conducted by means of an anonymous self-administered questionnaire distributed to second-, fifth- and sixth-year dental students at the College of Medicine, University of Lagos. Participation was voluntary and 67 students agreed to participate in the study. Majority (51%) were aged between 24 and 27 years. The questionnaire contained questions on demography, preferred choice of course on admission, attempts at change of course, their present perception to dentistry and future dental practice.
Result:  Over 90% of them were admitted through the Joint admission and matriculation board and 40 (60%) chose Medicine as their first course choice. Of the 40, 18 had attempted a change of course and eight were still interested in a career change (four were in the fifth year). Most of the change in attitude occurred in fourth year. Sixty (90%) intend to practice dentistry but 38 (63%) of these would like to practice outside Nigeria.
Conclusion:  Exposure to dental training appears to improve students' perception about dental practice but uncertainty about future prospects in Nigeria may lead to brain drain in the dental profession.     

The impact of undergraduate geriatric dental education on the attitudes of recently graduated dentists towards institutionalised elderly people

Objective:  The aim of the study was to assess the impact of undergraduate geriatric dentistry education on knowledge of ageing and on attitudes towards institutionalised elderly people, as perceived by recently graduated dentists.
Methods:  A validated questionnaire was sent by mail to all dentists of the study group ( n = 357). The questionnaire collected socio-demographic data, motives for pursuing a dental career, knowledge of ageing, attitude towards institutionalised elderly people using the Aging Semantic Differential (ASD), and aspects of geriatric dentistry education.
Results:  Great variability between the six dental schools involved was observed in respect of the undergraduate education received in geriatric dentistry. Dentists' knowledge of ageing was also low. The mean value of ASD-total indicated that in this study there was a negative attitude towards the institutionalised elderly. The covariate 'financial motive for pursuing a dental career' was the only item that seemed to have any significant influence on the ASD. Age was the only significant variable for knowledge. All other covariates were found not to have any influence.
Conclusions:  From this study it would appear that the attitude of recently graduated dentists in Belgium towards the institutionalised elderly is rather negative and their knowledge of ageing is poor. The actual level of geriatric dentistry education in the undergraduate curriculum did not appear to influence this attitude, but Belgian dental schools are challenged to reorientate their provision of geriatric dentistry education to include activities that help to develop positive perceptions towards the elderly, with an empathic positive and caring attitude.     

Predoctoral Implant Dentistry Programs in US Dental Schools

Surveys of US dental schools over the last 20 years have reported a continual increase in the number and types of predoctoral and postdoctoral implant dentistry programs being taught. The purpose of the following article is to report on the results of a survey intended to update the status of predoctoral programs with respect to their curricular placement, departmental jurisdictions, and course contents. In June 1993, 54 US dental schools received the implant dentistry curriculum survey, and 50 of the schools (93%) returned responses. Results indicate that the trend toward implementation of more predoctoral implant dentistry programs has been sustained, with 86% of schools reporting the existence of implant curricula. This compares with 33% and 73% of US schools having such programs in 1974 and 1989, respectively. The major reasons that schools gave for not having implant dentistry courses for predoctoral students are a lack of curriculum time and scarce financial resources. The dental disciplines most frequently guiding such programs are oral surgery and periodontics. Schools offer varying degrees of lectures, laboratories, and clinical experiences in predoctoral implant dentistry, with the number of curriculum hours peaking in years three and four. General curricular topics most commonly include a historical overview of implant dentistry, diagnosis and treatment planning, classifications and types of dental implants, and surgical and prosthodontic procedures. Seventeen percent of schools require some form of undergraduate clinical implant dentistry exposure for all of their students.     

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

PURPOSE: Didactic predoctoral dental implant education is part of the curriculum in most US dental schools. However, fewer than half offer laboratory instruction, and only a few allow dental students to place and restore dental implants. The additional time necessary for laboratory and clinical experience encroaches on an already crowded curriculum. Is the additional time necessary in the curriculum for laboratory and clinical experience by dental students reflected by the practice patterns of graduates who have completed such a program over the past 10 years? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was designed to determine the implant practice patterns of graduates of the Creighton School of Dentistry, Omaha, Nebraska, for the 10-year period 1988 to 1997. These graduates had all participated in a formal undergraduate didactic and laboratory curriculum in implant dentistry. Approximately half also had the opportunity to place and/or restore dental implants while students. The survey was also sent to graduates (also 1988 to 1997) from a midwestern dental school without a formal laboratory or clinical component (used as a control group). The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In comparison to the control group (56% versus 23%), more than twice as many Creighton graduates restore dental implants as a part of their general practice, surgically place more dental implants, refer more implant patients to surgical specialists, and seek more continuing education hours related to implant dentistry. These conclusions were all supported by statistical analysis of the data. DISCUSSION: Student clinical experience with implant dentistry appears to significantly increase the incorporation of implant dentistry into future dental practices. Even if clinical experience was not an option, a school curriculum which included both didactic and laboratory participation still significantly increased the number of graduates who included implant dentistry in their practices. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of laboratory and clinical experience in implant dentistry in the CUSD undergraduate curriculum resulted in significantly greater participation in implant dentistry at the general practice level.     

A paradigm shift in predoctoral dental curricula in Brazil: evaluating the process of change

In 2002, the Brazilian Ministry of Education approved the official curricular guidelines for undergraduate courses in Brazil to be adopted by the nation's 188 dental schools. In 2005-06, the Brazilian Dental Education Association (BDEA) promoted workshops in forty-eight of the schools to verify the degree of transformation of the curriculum based on these guidelines. Among the areas analyzed were course philosophy (variables were v1: knowledge production based on the needs of the Brazilian Public Health System [BPHS]; v2: health determinants; and v3: postgraduate studies and permanent education); pedagogical skills (v4: curricular structure; v5: changes in pedagogic and didactic skills; and v6: course program orientation); and dental practice scenarios (v7: diversity of the scenarios for training/learning; v8: academic health care centers opened to the BPHS; and v9: participation of students in health care delivery for the population). The subjects consisted of faculty members (n=711), students (n=228), and employees (n=14). The results showed an incipient degree of curriculum transformation. The degree of innovation was statistically different depending on the type of university (public or private) for variables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Private schools reported a higher level of innovation than public institutions. Resistance to transforming the dental curriculum according to the official guidelines may be linked to an ideological conception that supports the private practice model, continues to have faculty members direct all classroom activities, and prevents students from developing an understanding of professional practice as targeted towards the oral health needs of all segments of society.     

Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam

Aim  To investigate the attitudes of final year dental students in Wales and Ireland to the use of rubber dam.
Methods  A pre-piloted questionnaire was distributed to final year dental students in Cardiff and Cork Dental Schools in January 2008. Information sought included attitudes to, and the current and anticipated use of, rubber dam for a variety of operative and endodontic treatments.
Results  Of 93 questionnaires distributed, 87 were completed and returned (response rate = 94%; Cardiff: 89%, n  = 51; Cork: 100%, n  = 36). Rubber dam was routinely used by 98% of respondents ( n  = 85) on adult patients, but only 32% of respondents ( n  = 28) had used rubber dam on child patients ( P  < 0.05). Rubber dam was never used by 75% of respondents ( n  = 65) when placing posterior amalgam restorations, and by 21% of respondents ( n  = 18) when placing anterior composite restorations. Rubber dam was used by 98% of the respondents ( n  = 85) when performing root canal treatments. Sixty-two per cent of respondents ( n  = 54) believed their use of rubber dam would decrease once leaving the dental school.
Conclusion  Whilst dental students believe that rubber dam is relevant to clinical dentistry, there are negative perceptions associated with its use amongst dental students. More than half of those questioned predicted their use of rubber dam would decrease once in independent practice. Greater emphasis should be placed on the advantages of using rubber dam in clinical dentistry whilst at dental school.     

Current status of predoctoral geriatric education in U.S. dental schools

The elderly constitute the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Dental schools must educate dental students so that they are competent and confident in managing the treatment needs of elderly patients. Programs in geriatric dentistry have been developed in response to the changing oral health needs of growing numbers of older adults. The purpose of this online survey was to identify the current status of predoctoral geriatric dental education in U.S. dental schools. A questionnaire relating to the teaching of geriatric dentistry was posted on the World Wide Web, and fifty-four US. dental schools were invited to complete the form. Data from completed questionnaires were submitted to the investigators via email. Following repeated phone calls and emails to urge school administrators to respond to the electronic questionnaire, a 100 percent response rate was achieved. All schools reported teaching at least some aspects of geriatric dentistry, and 98 percent had curricula that contain required didactic material. Sixty-seven percent of schools reported having a clinical component to geriatric dental teaching. Of these schools, the clinical content was required in 77 percent and elective in the rest. Thirty percent of schools reported a specific geriatric dentistry clinic within the school, and 11 percent had a remote clinical site. Sixty-three percent of schools have a geriatric program director or a chairman of a geriatric section. Over a third of schools indicated that they plan to extend the teaching of geriatric dentistry in the future. Geriatric dental education has continued to expand over the last twenty years and has established itself in the U.S. predoctoral dental curriculum. The format of teaching the subject varies considerably among the dental schools. Although didactic teaching of geriatric dentistry has increased markedly in the last two decades, clinical experience, both intramurally and extramurally, did not keep pace.     

A survey on undergraduate implant dentistry education in Europe

Introduction:  The aim of the survey was to assess the status of implant dentistry education and addressed various aspects related to competence level, practical implementation and barriers for further development in the field.
Materials and methods:  An e-mail survey was performed amongst 73 opinion leaders from 18 European countries invited to the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) workshop on implant dentistry.
Results:  Forty-nine surveys were returned (67%) and it was found that theoretical and pre-clinical courses to an average of 36 h are given to undergraduates; 70% reported that students assist or treat patients with prosthetics; 53% reported that students assist with surgery and only 5% is operating patients. In 23% of the schools optional undergraduate courses are available and 90% offer postgraduate training. Barriers for including prosthetics and surgery are lack of time, funding or staff. Partial restorations, including surgery, in the posterior regions may be provided by dentists after attendance at additional courses but complex treatments should be limited to specialists.
Conclusion:  This survey confirms that implant dentistry is part of the undergraduate curriculum, albeit with a disparity in time. Whereas implant dentistry is an important part of clinical practice, coverage in the curriculum is limited and when compared with 10 years ago, even stagnating. Priorities within the curriculum should be evaluated depending on demands and treatment needs of the population. To optimise education, learning guidelines should be developed, based on the expected competencies for practicing dentists. Undergraduate education may start the process that must continue through all levels of education, including the postgraduate level.     

Predoctoral implant dentistry curriculum survey: European dental schools

PURPOSE: In 2002 a survey of European dental schools was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to determine the curricular structure, teaching philosophies and materials used in predoctoral implant dentistry courses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six European dental schools were randomly selected from the Association for Dental Education in Europe representing 33 countries. A questionnaire was mailed to the predoctoral implant dentistry director/chairperson of the selected European dental schools. Of these, 40 schools returned the completed survey, resulting in a response rate of 71%. The mean, median and range of responses were computed where applicable. RESULTS: The results from this survey show that 80% of the responding schools required a course in implant dentistry. Between 1997 and 1999 over a third of responding schools (36%) incorporated a predoctoral implant dentistry course into their curriculum. Eighty-seven per cent of the schools have some prosthodontists teaching the course. Thirty-seven per cent of schools are offering a laboratory course in conjunction with the implant course. Sixty-three per cent of the schools are not restoring implant cases at the predoctoral level. However, 68% of schools reported students are required to be present during implant surgery. Ten per cent of schools require that the implant-related laboratory work be completed by the students. CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

A curriculum for primary care dentistry.

This paper is a discussion of curricular planning with respect to primary care dentistry. It is meant to be anticipatory, although the proposals contained are transitional and evolutionary rather than abrupt. It is intended to be suggestive rather than authoritarian and exemplary rather than definitive. Many of the recommendations and suggestions are already operative in dental education, albeit in limited or experimental form. An overview of both the content and the process of a primary care dental curriculum is presented, and several specific recommendations for curricular change are submitted. Among the more salient recommendations are (1) changing the admissions process to attract to dentistry those most qualified for primary care; (2) moving the basic sciences into the predental curriculum during the initial phase in the development of primary care dentistry; (3) substantially increasing the amount of behavioral science in the dental curriculum; (4) placing curricular emphasis initially on diagnosis and expanding the competence of the primary care dentist in endodontics, periodontics, pedodontics, orthodontics, and prevention; (5) initiating student group practice as the vehicle for patient care; (6) including intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary training as integral components of primary care curricula; (7) extending the curriculum; (8) establishing general practice or primary care residencies either as an intracurricular experience or as a postdoctoral requirement; (9) reorganizing dental school clinics and clinical training to reflect primary care curricular goals; (10) making more rational use of existing auxiliaries, the eventual goal being auxiliaries who perform most of the routine functions; and (11) ultimately integrating dentistry into medicine so that the future primary care practitioner receives both medical and dental training. It is obvious that the extent to which any of these recommendations will be implemented depends on a great deal more than what happens within a dental school. There are many putative countervailing forces which can make implementation difficult; on the other side of the ledger, these same forces might be propitious. As an illustration, the staggering financial constraints imposed on the dental schools can cause us to throw up our hands in despair or can impel us to look carefully at what we are doing, ask why we are doing it, and by building on what is sound and discarding the antiquated and irrelevant, reassemble our curricula to meet public need better than we have been doing...     

The teaching of forensic dentistry: a status report.

A survey was conducted to assess the current status of instruction and curricular content in forensic dentistry in United States dental schools. The dean of each of the 60 dental schools was asked to describe the formal teaching program in forensic dentistry in the predoctoral, postgraduate, resident, and continuing education curriculum. Faculty characteristics and the relationship of the faculty to extramural organizations dealing with forensic science were analyzed. Results indicate that 42 percent of the respondents do not offer formal courses in forensic dentistry at any level of dental education. The remaining 58 percent offer courses that are primarily didactic in nature. The diagnostic dental science departments are responsible for the organization and administration of forensic dental courses at the majority of respondent schools. A significant number of faculty teaching forensic dentistry hold advanced degrees in medicine and law, as well as other disciplines. Although forensic dental faculty are trained to assist law enforcement agencies, their consulting services are not generally used to the fullest extent. Based on the results of this survey, a series of recommendations for structuring the forensic science curriculum in dental schools is offered.     

A 10‐Year Survey of US Deans: Trends,Challenges, and Mentoring in Prosthodontics. Part 2

Purpose: Part 2 of this survey reports on the 2009 survey findings distributed to the deans of US dental schools. A national, electronic survey of 58 dental school deans was distributed by e‐mail to evaluate an interest in specialty training, an interest in specialty training in prosthodontics, faculty shortage issues, predoctoral curriculum in prosthodontics, ideology regarding dental specialties, and the administrative position of prosthodontics within the schools. Materials and Methods: The survey data were transferred to an online spreadsheet program for statistical analysis (Key Survey, Inc. http://www.keysurvey.com , Braintree, MA). The opinions of dental school deans were viewed as legitimate indicators of change within predoctoral and postdoctoral prosthodontic education. Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistica Version 9.1 (Statsoft, Tulsa, OK). Results: Of the 58 deans, 42 deans responded, for a 72.4% response rate. Twenty‐three deans reported an increase in the number of students seeking specialty training after dental school. Only three deans reported a decrease in those seeking specialty training. In the 2009 survey, 45% the deans responded that there was an increased interest in prosthodontics. One or more open faculty positions in prosthodontics existed at 24 (59%) of the dental schools, and 30 (71%) offered at least one incentive or a variety of incentives to recruit faculty. The 2009 respondents to the deans’ survey revealed predoctoral student exposure to prosthodontists was high, and exposure to advanced education in prosthodontics students was low. A survey of internal school programs that might have an impact on an increased interest in prosthodontics revealed the presence of a predoctoral mentoring program for prosthodontics in 36 (88%) of the institutions. The clinical curriculum included treatment of a variety of cases including complex cases as defined by a diagnostic classification system. The 2009 survey respondents reported an increase in the number of schools where prosthodontics is a separate entity or department. Conclusion: Deans reported an increased interest in prosthodontics in the 2009 survey. Open faculty positions in prosthodontics existed in the majority of dental schools, and most schools offered incentives to recruit faculty. The survey of deans found a very high level of exposure of dental students to full‐time prosthodontists and a very low exposure level to students enrolled in advanced education in prosthodontics. The establishment of mentoring programs in prosthodontics was reported by most deans, and the predoctoral curriculum included treating complex cases. Most deans stated that dual‐specialty training in prosthodontics and periodontics would be beneficial. The 2009 survey reported an increase in the number of departments of prosthodontics in US schools.     

Predoctoral Implant Education in U.S. Dental Schools

PURPOSE: In 2002, a survey of American dental schools was conducted to determine the curricular structure, teaching philosophies, and materials used in predoctoral implant dentistry courses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was mailed to the predoctoral implant dentistry director/chairperson of 54 U.S. dental schools. Of these, 38 schools returned the completed survey resulting in a response rate of 70%. RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of the respondents indicated that an implant dentistry course is part of their school's requirements. Seventy percent indicated that this course is offered by either the Restorative or Prosthodontics Department in the third year of the predoctoral dental curriculum. For 75% of the schools, the duration of the course ranged from 3 to 6 months (mean of 5.5 months), 57% reported offering between 11 and 20 lecture hours (mean of 20.4 hours), and less than half of the schools (41%) have prosthodontists teaching the predoctoral implant dentistry course. In 78% of the schools, a laboratory course is offered in conjunction with the implant course. The majority of the schools (88%) allow predoctoral students to restore implant cases clinically. Seventy-three percent require some of the implant-related laboratory work to be completed by the students and the single-tooth implant restoration is the most popular type of implant restoration for 78% of the schools. CONCLUSIONS: Predoctoral implant dentistry educational programs vary from school to school, yet a large percentage of schools agree on certain topics.