Developing implant dentistry education in Europe: the continuum from undergraduate to postgraduate education and continuing professional development.

INTRODUCTION: Implant dentistry is a treatment modality which has mainstream clinical practice of comprehensive care, which however is not adequately represented in the undergraduate dental curricula. A consensus workshop organised by ADEE in 2008, set the benchmarks for the knowledge and competences a modern dental practitioner must possess with regard to implant dentistry, as well as defined undergraduate and postgraduate pathways for the acquisition of these competences. Today, 5 years later, there exist several challenges for the implementation of these benchmarks in both undergraduate curricula but also post-graduation educational pathways. METHODS: A consensus workshop was organised by ADEE, bringing together 48 opinion leaders, including academic teachers of all disciplines related to implant dentistry, specialists, representatives of relevant scientific and professional associations, as well as industry delegates. The objectives of the workshop were to evaluate the existing scientific literature, reported experience and best practices in order to identify potential and limitations for the implementation of implant dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum, as well produce recommendations for the optimal educational structures for postgraduate programmes and continuing professional development. RESULTS: The scientific committee conducted two European-wide questionnaire surveys to better document the current state of education in implant dentistry. Upon completion of the surveys, reviewers were appointed to produce three scientific review papers, identifying current achievements and future challenges. Finally, during the 3 days of the workshop, all the evidence was reviewed and the main conclusions and recommendations that were adopted by all participants are reported in the present Consensus Paper. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of implant dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum has improved significantly, but still lags behind the benchmarks set in 2008 and the diversity between institutions remains big. At the post-graduation level, there is currently a wide diversity of courses and pathways towards competences related to implant dentistry and there is at present a great need for quality assurance, as well as standardisation and transparency of the learning outcomes.

Five-year survival rates for implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides: a systematic review.

Digitally-designed static surgical guides provide an acceptable level of accuracy and predictability for the placement of dental implants. However, to our knowledge, few published studies have compared the long-term survival of implants placed in this way with those placed using other methods. A systematic search of electronic databases using a population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework was conducted of Medline and EMBASE, as well as grey literature and hand searches, to obtain all relevant work pertaining to the survival of dental implants placed by guided surgery. The studies were required to have at least 10 patients with a follow up of at least five years. A total of 621 titles were screened. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, and they all reported the exclusive use of Nobel Biocare implants and the NobelGuide system (Nobel Biocare Services). Cumulative survival rates ranged from 94.5% to 100% over five years. The survival rates of implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides are comparable to the estimated overall survival rate (95.6% over five years), despite the complex nature of the treatments done with guided surgery. Clinicians who do these operations should, however, have the experience and ability to revert to conventional freehand techniques if complications arise.

Assessment of knowledge and competencies related to implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate university education.

Learning in academic settings is strongly related to the way the students are tested or examined. Assessment therefore must be integrated in the curriculum design, coordinated and should reflect the learning outcomes of the education. Assessment within the field of implant dentistry must fulfil four major objectives: complete and direct the learning process with feedback (formative), ensure that students are adequately prepared (summative), assess attitudes and skills such as critical thinking, reflection and self-assessment ability, and supply continuous feedback to teachers on curricular content and impact. Different assessment methods should be used to assess different levels of competencies throughout the curriculum. Various forms of written or oral assessment methodologies are applicable at earlier stages in the curriculum. At intermediate levels, interactive assessment methods, such as patient simulations (paper based or virtual) and more could encourage the necessary synthesis of several disciplines and aspects of the theoretical knowledge. At higher levels of competence, documentation of clinical proficiency by means of reflective portfolios and diaries is an appropriate assessment method with both formative and summative potential. The highest level of competence requires performance assessment using structured, objective, clinical criteria. The group strongly encourages the use of reflective forms of assessment methods which engage the students in a process of self-appraisal, identification of individual learning needs and self-directed learning. The ultimate goal of this would be to allow the student to develop a lifelong learning attitude.

Factors affecting the complexity of dental implant restoration - what is the current evidence and guidance?

Objectives The aim of this paper is to identify the factors that affect the complexity of implant restoration and to explore the indices that help us to assess it. With this knowledge the growing number of clinicians restoring dental implants will have a better understanding of the available guidance and evidence base, and the differing levels of competence required.Study design A literature review was conducted. The selection of publications reporting on complexity was based on predetermined criteria and was agreed upon by the authors. After title and abstract screening 17 articles were reviewed. The articles that were utilised to form the ITI SAC tool and Cologne Risk Assessment we also included.Assessing complexity Two key guides are available: International Team for Implantology's Straight-forward Advanced Complex tool and the Cologne ABC risk score. While these guides help identify treatment complexity they do not provide a strong enough evidence base from which to solely base clinical decisions. The key patient factors are expectation, communication, the oral environment, aesthetic outcome, occlusion, soft tissue profile and the intra-arch distance, whereas the key technical factors are impression taking, type of retention, loading protocol and the need for provisional restorations. Human factors also have a significant effect on complexity, specifically, the experience and training of the clinician, team communication and the work environment.Conclusions There are many interconnecting factors that affect the complexity of dental implant restoration. Furthermore the two widely used indices for the assessment of complexity have been investigated, and although these offer a good guideline as to the level of complexity, there is a lack evidence to support their use. The development of evidence-based treatment and protocols is necessary to develop the current indices further, and these need to be expanded to include other critical areas, such as human factors. A practical guide to aid practitioners in reducing complexity has been proposed.