{"title":"Endodontic Competence of the New General Dentist as Conceptualized by Predoctoral Educators: A Qualitative Exploration","authors":"","doi":"10.54289/jdoe2400109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Without a unified standard for what constitutes endodontic competence for the new general dentist, predoctoral endodontic directors (PEDs) are left with the great responsibility of educating their learners in a manner that they believe best serves patients. Given different influencing factors and varying amounts of resources, these PEDs must ensure the achievement of meaningful objectives utilizing conceptual frameworks of competence. It is essential for dental educators and other stakeholders to gain an understanding of what current endodontic competence means to enable more accurate needs assessments to advise future curriculum development. The purpose of this study was to explore how endodontic competence for the new general dentist is conceptualized by predoctoral endodontics directors and their respective institutions while identifying perceived facilitators and barriers to its achievement. Methods: Following the development of a semi-structured interview guide and its piloting, qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 PEDs. Interviews were transcribed and coded. The constant comparative method was utilized for data analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Conceptualization of endodontic competency seemed to be informed by three primary themes: the existing paradigmatic approaches of PEDs and their institutions, their concerns regarding validity evidence especially as it related to assessment, and the presence of institutional and logistical barriers. Conclusion: Despite differences between their institutional definition and personal conceptualization of endodontic competence, PEDs report success at graduating new general dentists competent in endodontic diagnosis, case difficulty assessment, palliative treatment, and routine non-surgical root canal therapy on single-canal teeth of minimal difficulty.","PeriodicalId":73703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":"36 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54289/jdoe2400109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Without a unified standard for what constitutes endodontic competence for the new general dentist, predoctoral endodontic directors (PEDs) are left with the great responsibility of educating their learners in a manner that they believe best serves patients. Given different influencing factors and varying amounts of resources, these PEDs must ensure the achievement of meaningful objectives utilizing conceptual frameworks of competence. It is essential for dental educators and other stakeholders to gain an understanding of what current endodontic competence means to enable more accurate needs assessments to advise future curriculum development. The purpose of this study was to explore how endodontic competence for the new general dentist is conceptualized by predoctoral endodontics directors and their respective institutions while identifying perceived facilitators and barriers to its achievement. Methods: Following the development of a semi-structured interview guide and its piloting, qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 PEDs. Interviews were transcribed and coded. The constant comparative method was utilized for data analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Conceptualization of endodontic competency seemed to be informed by three primary themes: the existing paradigmatic approaches of PEDs and their institutions, their concerns regarding validity evidence especially as it related to assessment, and the presence of institutional and logistical barriers. Conclusion: Despite differences between their institutional definition and personal conceptualization of endodontic competence, PEDs report success at graduating new general dentists competent in endodontic diagnosis, case difficulty assessment, palliative treatment, and routine non-surgical root canal therapy on single-canal teeth of minimal difficulty.