Review of the literature: Advanced education in prosthodontics

Abstract

1. The ADA Council on Dental Education Commission on Accreditation, using the Standards for undergraduate education and current National Board scores, does not believe there has been a deemphasis in prosthodontic knowledge and skill. This opinion is not shared by program Directors or representatives of the laboratory industry. The Council on Dental Education has a mechanism for periodic review in place. State Boards of Dental Examiners did not respond. 2. Teaching experience for residents or graduate students should be encouraged in advanced education programs in prosthodontics as an elective or be limited to no more than 10% of the curriculum time. 3. The American Board of Prosthodontics would not comment on any changes regarding the clinical or didactic knowledge of candidates. 4. Meaningful research is not possible within the current minimum 22-month program duration. 5. Accredited advanced education programs in prosthodontics are currently meeting the standard guidelines for clinical and didactic experiences. 6. Accredited advanced education programs in prosthodontics are currently satisfying the requirements on supervision and faculty; however, the data from the annual reports suggest a marked decrease in staff support and amount of time that program directors are devoting to the program. 7. Expanding the curriculum to include implant prosthodontics will require lengthening the curriculum time. 8. TMJ therapy and geriatric dentistry need to be better defined in the educational guidelines. 9. The criterion-based examination currently given by the American Board of Prosthodontics clearly delineates acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable levels of performance. 10. Program directors desire more "feedback" from the American Board of Prosthodontics on the performance of candidates.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)