COMPARISON OF CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES PREDOCTORAL DENTAL IMPLANT EDUCATION.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the current status of Canadian predoctoral implant programs in terms of director demographics, curriculum characteristics and preferences in the techniques that are used to teach and carry out implant therapy. We compared the findings to analogous data recently acquired from dental schools in the United States.

Methods: A survey instrument was sent electronically to directors of predoctoral implant programs at all 10 accredited dental schools in Canada.

Results: All 10 dental schools responded to the survey. Program directors were affiliated with prosthodontics (90%) or oral surgery (10%) departments. Most Canadian institutions (90%) formally integrate their implant program into the third year of the curriculum. Clinical implant curricula include simulated exercises and direct patient care under supervision in 90% of predoctoral programs. Frequently taught restorative modalities include the posterior single-tooth implant crown (100%), mandibular implant-retained overdenture (90%), anterior implant-supported single crown (60%) and posterior 3-unit implant-supported bridge (50%). All programs reported the routine use of guided surgery planning software and surgical guides to aid in implant treatment planning. Preferred clinical protocols include implant-level impressioning (90%), use of open-tray impression copings (70%), custom abutment fabrication (60%), coronal fixation by screw-retention (60%) and use of titanium (100%) or zirconia (60%) abutments. Half of the program directors reported feeling that graduating students were adequately prepared to provide implant therapy on graduation. The demographics of Canadian directors of predoctoral implant programs were very similar to those of their counterparts in the United States. The largest divergences existed in clinical curriculum preferences and subjective perception of student preparedness in oral implantology on graduation.

Conclusion: Greater homogeneity exists among Canadian dental schools with regard to predoctoral implant program curricula, compared with those in the United States. Further investigation is warranted to examine the reasons for Canadian program directors' current perceptions of lack of preparedness of graduating predoctoral students.