CODA standard 2-24 h-"replacement of teeth" dilemma: Unintended consequences and proposed solutions.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) was established in 1975 with the goal of serving the public and the dental profession by developing and implementing standards that guide and maintain the quality of dental educational programs. These standards are defined broadly around competencies reflective of an evidence-based definition of general dentistry and that should be met by the new graduates to function as an entry level provider. Consequently, CODA "expects each school to develop specific competency definitions and assessment methods in the context of the broad scope of general dental practice". CODA Standard 2-24 h was implemented a decade ago to address concerns that dental schools are not sufficiently proactive in incorporating implant-related curricula and clinical competencies. When the standard was implemented, most patients already preferred dental implants over FPDs. This market trend, together with the prescriptive format of the standard, had the unintended consequence of creating pressure on programs that struggled to find enough patients who will chose FPDs as a treatment option. DISCUSSION: As a short term solution, we suggest a tooth replacement competency construct that has the potential to alleviate this burden. This solution incorporates principles of ethical decision making, patient-centered care, and evidence-based dentistry, without compromising educational aspects and competency development. For the longer term, we suggested to revise and rephrase the standard so that it will be clinically-centered rather than focused on technical tools that may evolve, change, or disappear as a result of technological progress and other market trends. This, in turn, will be conducive to fulfill the intent of Standard 2-24 to allow the schools to identify "competencies that will be included in the curriculum based on the school's goals, resources, accepted general practitioner responsibilities and other influencing factors."

Utilizing self-assessment software to evaluate student wax-ups in dental morphology.

Traditionally, evaluating student work in preclinical courses has relied on the judgment of experienced clinicians utilizing visual inspection. However, research has shown significant disagreement between different evaluators (interrater reliability) and between results from the same evaluator at different times (intrarater reliability). This study evaluated a new experimental software (E4D Compare) to compare 66 student-produced tooth wax-ups at one U.S. dental school to an ideal standard after both had been digitally scanned. Using 3D surface-mapping technology, a numerical evaluation was generated by calculating the surface area of the student's work that was within a set range of the ideal. The aims of the study were to compare the reliability of faculty and software grades and to determine the ideal tolerance value for the software. The investigators hypothesized that the software would provide more consistent feedback than visual grading and that a tolerance value could be determined that closely correlated with the faculty grade. The results showed that a tolerance level of 450 µm provided 96% agreement of grades compared with only 53% agreement for faculty. The results suggest that this software could be used by faculty members as a mechanism to evaluate student work and for students to use as a self-assessment tool.