Premium
Comparative Assessment of a New Holistic‐Oriented and an Old Specialty‐Specific Undergraduate Curriculum in Removable Prosthodontics: A Study Based on Senior Students’ Perceptions
Author(s) -
Papadiochou Sofia,
Kotsiomiti Eleni,
Pissiotis Argirios L.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12538
Subject(s) - curriculum , prosthodontics , likert scale , specialty , medical education , medicine , psychology , dentistry , perception , orthodontics , family medicine , pedagogy , developmental psychology , neuroscience
Purpose A survey was conducted in the Dental School, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, (i) to assess the perceptions and experiences of senior dental students, Classes of 2014 and 2015, toward the old, specialty‐specific (OC) and new, holistic‐oriented (NC) undergraduate curriculum, respectively, in removable prosthodontics and (ii) to identify areas of improvement in prosthodontic training. Materials and Methods Structural components of both curricula were collected, including the total number of (i) laboratory/lecture/clinical training hours, (ii) written examinations, (iii) mandatory clinical cases, and (iv) European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits. A 20‐item closed‐type questionnaire using a five‐point Likert scale was distributed in two consecutive groups of seniors, Classes of 2014 (n = 54) and 2015 (n = 57); 54 OC and 57 NC senior students filled out the questionnaire. Results A greater percentage of NC students stated that (i) they felt less confident to carry out jaw relation recording and removable partial denture metal framework design and (ii) the time allocated for clinical training was less sufficient. Students of both curricula reported that the laboratory courses and lectures contributed little to their clinical performance. Implant restorations and prosthetic management of patients with craniomandibular disorders were the most popular treatment options that the respondents felt that should be incorporated in the undergraduate curriculum. Conclusions As a general trend, students completing the revised curriculum reported more difficulties during their training and felt more insecure about their clinical competences. To enhance students’ self‐confidence in prosthodontics, more effective preclinical training methods, introduction of additional treatment options, and alternative educational methods should be considered.