Huebner Gene R
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Creighton University School of Dentistry, Omaha, Nebraska 68178, USA.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jul-Aug;17(4):543-9.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
在美国大多数牙科学院的课程中，牙种植学的博士前教学是其中一部分。然而，提供实验室教学的学校不到一半，只有少数学校允许牙科学生植入和修复牙种植体。实验室和临床经验所需的额外时间侵占了本已拥挤的课程安排。过去10年完成此类课程的毕业生的实践模式是否反映了牙科学生在课程中进行实验室和临床经验所需的额外时间是必要的？
设计了一项调查，以确定内布拉斯加州奥马哈市克里顿牙科学院1988年至1997年这10年间毕业生的种植实践模式。这些毕业生都参加了牙种植学的正式本科教学和实验室课程。大约一半的学生在就读期间也有机会植入和/或修复牙种植体。该调查还发送给了一所没有正式实验室或临床课程的中西部牙科学院的毕业生（1988年至1997年，用作对照组）。对数据进行了统计分析。
与对照组相比（56%对23%），克里顿牙科学院的毕业生将牙种植体修复作为其一般诊疗的一部分的人数是对照组的两倍多，手术植入的牙种植体更多，将更多种植患者转诊给外科专家，并且寻求与牙种植学相关的继续教育学时更多。所有这些结论都得到了数据统计分析的支持。
牙科学生在牙种植学方面的临床经验似乎显著增加了牙种植学在未来牙科实践中的应用。即使临床经验不是一个选项，包含教学和实验室参与的学校课程仍然显著增加了在实践中纳入牙种植学的毕业生数量。
在克里顿大学牙科学院本科课程中纳入牙种植学的实验室和临床经验，导致在一般诊疗水平上对牙种植学的参与显著增加。
