M Gürsoy1, A Wilensky2, N Claffey3, D Herrera4, P M Preshaw5, M Sanz4, U Schlagenhauf6, L Trombelli7, K Demirel8. 1. Department of Periodontology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 2. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel. 3. Division of Restorative Dentistry & Periodontology, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 4. ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal Diseases) Research Group, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain. 5. Centre for Oral Health Research and Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 6. Department of Periodontology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany. 7. School of Dentistry & Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 8. Department of Periodontology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This survey aimed to evaluate whether periodontal education and assessment in undergraduate dental curricula amongst the member countries of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) follow the competency-based curricular guidelines and recommendations developed by the Association for Dental Education in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiple-choice questionnaire was emailed to 244 dental institutes amongst the 24 EFP member countries between November 2014 and July 2015. RESULTS: Data were received from 16 (66.7%) EFP member countries. Out of 117 responding dental institutes, 76 (64.95%) were included as valid responders. In most of the institutes (86.3%), a minimum set of competencies in periodontology was taken into account when constructing their dental education programmes. Out of 76 responders, 98.1% included lecture-based, 74.1% case-based and 57.1% problem-based teaching in their periodontal curricula, whilst a minority (15.9%) also used other methods. A similar pattern was also seen in the time allocation for these four educational methods, that is, the highest proportion (51.8%) was dedicated to lecture-based teaching and only a small proportion (5.7%) to other methods. Periodontal competencies and skills were most frequently assessed by clinical grading on clinic, multiple-choice examination (written examination) and oral examination, whereas competency tests and self-assessment were rarely used. Only in 11 (14.5%) cases, access flap procedures were performed by students. CONCLUSION: Great diversity in teaching methodology amongst the surveyed schools was demonstrated, and thus, to harmonise undergraduate periodontal education and assessment across Europe, a minimum set of recommendations could be developed and disseminated by the EFP.
OBJECTIVES: This survey aimed to evaluate whether periodontal education and assessment in undergraduate dental curricula amongst the member countries of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) follow the competency-based curricular guidelines and recommendations developed by the Association for Dental Education in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiple-choice questionnaire was emailed to 244 dental institutes amongst the 24 EFP member countries between November 2014 and July 2015. RESULTS: Data were received from 16 (66.7%) EFP member countries. Out of 117 responding dental institutes, 76 (64.95%) were included as valid responders. In most of the institutes (86.3%), a minimum set of competencies in periodontology was taken into account when constructing their dental education programmes. Out of 76 responders, 98.1% included lecture-based, 74.1% case-based and 57.1% problem-based teaching in their periodontal curricula, whilst a minority (15.9%) also used other methods. A similar pattern was also seen in the time allocation for these four educational methods, that is, the highest proportion (51.8%) was dedicated to lecture-based teaching and only a small proportion (5.7%) to other methods. Periodontal competencies and skills were most frequently assessed by clinical grading on clinic, multiple-choice examination (written examination) and oral examination, whereas competency tests and self-assessment were rarely used. Only in 11 (14.5%) cases, access flap procedures were performed by students. CONCLUSION: Great diversity in teaching methodology amongst the surveyed schools was demonstrated, and thus, to harmonise undergraduate periodontal education and assessment across Europe, a minimum set of recommendations could be developed and disseminated by the EFP.