Aram Kim is Instructor, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine; Fiorella Candamo is an AEGD resident, Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center; Alvin G. Wee is Professor and Director, Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry; Judy Chia-Chun Yuan is Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago; and Lily T. Garcia is Professor and Associate Dean for Education, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry & Dental Clinics.
J Dent Educ. 2019 Oct;83(10):1151-1157. doi: 10.21815/JDE.019.122. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
The aim of this study was to determine the educational methods and tools used to teach tooth prognosis and treatment complexity determination in U.S. predoctoral dental programs. In 2018, an online survey was emailed to the academic deans of all 66 accredited U.S. dental schools. Of these, 42 schools responded (63.6%), and 36 schools completed the entire survey (54.5%). The methods reported for teaching tooth prognosis and case complexity determination varied widely among the participating schools. Among the respondents, 25% reported using the American Association of Endodontists' Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment, while 10% reported having no specific method for teaching prognosis. The most common method for teaching overall treatment complexity was the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index, which was used by 24% of the respondents. However, another 24% reported that their school did not have a specific method for teaching treatment complexity. Large percentages of the respondents reported that students sometimes or often made wrong tooth prognosis and case complexity determination (90% and 92%, respectively). The most prominent feedback provided by the respondents based on their experience was the importance of faculty standardization, the understanding of students' inexperience, and the need for an interdisciplinary approach. The majority of these respondents reported that their schools had specific methods of teaching prognosis and case complexity determination. However, there was a wide range of teaching practices related to the contents and levels of evidence.
本研究旨在确定美国牙科学前课程中用于教授牙齿预后和治疗复杂性判断的教育方法和工具。2018 年,向所有 66 所经认可的美国牙科学校的学术院长发送了在线调查。其中,42 所学校(63.6%)做出了回应,36 所学校(54.5%)完成了整个调查。参与学校在教授牙齿预后和病例复杂性判断的方法上差异很大。在答复者中,25%报告使用美国牙髓病学会的牙髓病例难度评估,而 10%报告没有用于教授预后的特定方法。最常见的教授总体治疗复杂性的方法是修复诊断指数,24%的答复者使用这种方法。然而,另外 24%的答复者报告他们的学校没有教授治疗复杂性的特定方法。很大比例的答复者报告学生有时或经常做出错误的牙齿预后和病例复杂性判断(分别为 90%和 92%)。根据经验,答复者提供的最突出的反馈是教师标准化的重要性、对学生缺乏经验的理解以及跨学科方法的必要性。这些答复者中的大多数报告说他们的学校有具体的教授预后和病例复杂性判断的方法。然而,在内容和证据水平方面存在广泛的教学实践差异。