H Al Raisi1, P M H Dummer1, M E Vianna1. 1. School of Dentistry, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the delivery of undergraduate endodontic education in UK dental schools using an online survey and to compare the results with those of a previous paper-based survey (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234). Aspects of delivery were also evaluated in comparison with the Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines of the European Society of Endodontology (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105). METHODOLOGY: An online version of an earlier paper-based survey on undergraduate Endodontic education (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234) was created. Invitations to take part were sent via email to the undergraduate endodontic programme leads in the 16 UK dental schools. RESULTS: The response rate was 94%. The current survey revealed greater convergence amongst dental schools than previously (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234) on methods of canal preparation, disinfection and filling. Improvements were also noted in staff: student ratios, the involvement of teachers with advanced endodontic training and a greater diversity of teaching methods; developments which align with the recommendations of ESE Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105). The majority of schools appeared to be teaching contemporary instrumentation methods and were recommending the application of calcium silicate cements. The exposure of students to advanced topics included in the ESE Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105) such as surgical endodontic treatment, root canal re-treatment and the management of complex cases was mixed. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate endodontic training in the UK has advanced in the last 20 years with more consistency between schools and more contemporary methods adopted.
AIM: To evaluate the delivery of undergraduate endodontic education in UK dental schools using an online survey and to compare the results with those of a previous paper-based survey (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234). Aspects of delivery were also evaluated in comparison with the Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines of the European Society of Endodontology (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105). METHODOLOGY: An online version of an earlier paper-based survey on undergraduate Endodontic education (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234) was created. Invitations to take part were sent via email to the undergraduate endodontic programme leads in the 16 UK dental schools. RESULTS: The response rate was 94%. The current survey revealed greater convergence amongst dental schools than previously (Qualtrough & Dummer 1997, Int Endod J, 30, 234) on methods of canal preparation, disinfection and filling. Improvements were also noted in staff: student ratios, the involvement of teachers with advanced endodontic training and a greater diversity of teaching methods; developments which align with the recommendations of ESE Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105). The majority of schools appeared to be teaching contemporary instrumentation methods and were recommending the application of calcium silicate cements. The exposure of students to advanced topics included in the ESE Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines (de Moor et al. 2013, Int Endod J, 46, 1105) such as surgical endodontic treatment, root canal re-treatment and the management of complex cases was mixed. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate endodontic training in the UK has advanced in the last 20 years with more consistency between schools and more contemporary methods adopted.
Authors: Valérie Chevalier; Marjolaine Dessert; Kevin John Fouillen; Sile Lennon; Henry Fergus Duncan Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 5.165