JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Dent Educ. 65(8): 760-765 2001
© 2001 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, D.
Right arrow Articles by Feil, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, D.
Right arrow Articles by Feil, P
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 65, Issue 8, 760-765
Copyright © 2001 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

The use of specific dental school-taught restorative techniques by practicing clinicians

DM Clark, OJ Oyen, and P Feil

In 1995, a survey requesting information about the utilization of certain prosthodontic techniques was mailed to 3,544 graduates of a midwestern dental school. Responses were received from 1,455 alumni, representing a 41 percent return rate. In general, the results are consistent with international and national trends and show significant disparity in the utilization rates of certain procedures between general dentists and prosthodontists, as well as a disconnect between what is taught in the undergraduate dental educational program and what is applied in practice. For example, while prosthodontists typically apply what was taught in their educational program, utilization rates of general dentists for the facebow was 29.64 percent; the custom tray 68.48 percent; border molding 58.67 percent; altered casts 24.10 percent; custom posts 49.29 percent; prefabricated posts 67.54 percent; and semi-adjustable articulators 50.64 percent. While no solutions to this disconnect are offered the authors do pose important questions that must be addressed by the dental educational community.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
D. Henzi, E. Davis, R. Jasinevicius, W. Hendricson, L. Cintron, and M. Isaacs
Appraisal of the Dental School Learning Environment: The Students' View
J Dent Educ., October 1, 2005; 69(10): 1137 - 1147.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Dental Education Association.