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


     


J Dent Educ. 66(10): 1159-1162 2002
© 2002 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 Ferguson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Niederman, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ferguson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Niederman, R
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 66, Issue 10, 1159-1162
Copyright © 2002 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

Preclinical restorative training

MB Ferguson, M Sobel, and R Niederman

In conjunction with its problem-based learning curriculum, Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) developed a shortened preclinical restorative training curriculum. This study compared our curriculum with those in other dental schools and examined student reaction to it. Twenty-nine U.S. dental schools responded to a survey regarding the length of their preclinical course in Operative Dentistry. Nationally, preclinical courses ranged from 179 hours to 280 hours (mean +/- SEM = 193 +/- 9 hours; n = 29). In marked contrast, the new seventy-five-hour preclinical curriculum at Harvard was the lowest of any school, and significantly lower than the U.S. average (p < 0.01). In Harvard's previous curriculum, students spent 232 curriculum hours. Reactions of Harvard students to this compact preclinical curriculum were surveyed using a three-topic, three-category survey instrument. Results indicated that, prior to beginning clinical patient care, approximately 80 percent of students felt that the course was too short and 20 percent just right. Conversely, and retrospectively, after completing their dental school training, only 35 percent felt it was too short, and 65 percent felt it was just right. Retrospectively, in terms of clinical preparedness, 55 percent felt adequately prepared and 35 percent felt well prepared to treat their patients. No significant change was noted between Part II National Board scores following the change to the reduced curricula time. The average National Board Part II scores prior to initiating the new curriculum was 86.3, and afterwards, it was 86.2. Further, for the North East Regional Board, HSDM students in the past four years demonstrated a 98 percent overall success rate with 100 percent primary pass in the operative dentistry part of the examination. These results suggest that an abbreviated preclinical training is not only possible, but may make time available for training opportunities in other areas, such as aesthetic dental procedures and new biomaterials.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
C. Sukotjo, K. Thammasitboon, H. Howell, and N. Karimbux
The Impact of Targeted Shortened Preclinical Exercises on Student Perceptions and Outcomes
J Dent Educ., August 1, 2007; 71(8): 1070 - 1079.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
E. Bernabe, M. A. Ludena, and R. J. Beltran-Neira
Self-Perceived Public Health Competency Among Recent Dental Graduates
J Dent Educ., May 1, 2006; 70(5): 571 - 579.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Dental Education Association.