Contemporary undergraduate implant dentistry education: a systematic review

Introduction: Consensus reports recommend that students upon graduation should possess a significant level of knowledge and competences in implant dentistry, including basic competences in diagnostics, treatment planning, restorative and straightforward surgical- as well as maintenance procedures. In response, undergraduate curricula need to comprehensively integrate implant dentistry. This narrative review explores educational programs in terms of competences, related research and barriers or reflections, regarding the implementation within undergraduate curricula. Materials and methods: Publications (2008-2013) were systematically searched in WOS, Pubmed and ERIC and independently screened by two authors encompassing four stages: removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening and full-text reading. Inclusion criteria encompassed implant dentistry in undergraduate education. Results: Finally 37/420 papers were included. Detailed information regarding program content, participants’ number, staff input, logistics/funding issues is scattered. Theoretical education is predominant and preclinical/clinical training is minimally offered, often in elective programmes. However, selected straightforward cases treated by undergraduates, yield positive outcomes with low failure rates, few complications, high patients’ satisfaction and students’ appreciation. Barriers to implement implant dentistry include funding issues, limitations in time or staff availability/competence and lack of suitable patients. Overcoming these barriers is worthwhile as experienced-based implant education affects future practice in that well-informed students propose more restorative alternatives to their patients. Conclusion: Although implant denstitry is increasingly integrated in undergraduate curricula, challenges remain in developing strategies to implement existing competence profiles and the extent of experience-based education. In support of further advancement, universities should report comprehensively and structurised on their implant programmes to allow comparison and reproduction