MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was conducted in Nov 2021 of all the dental schools in ten English-language speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) to identify departments/divisions in the disciplines of periodontology, cariology, and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry. The results were then compared against the findings of a similar investigation that was conducted from July to October 2008.
RESULTS: Of the 126 dental schools identified in 2021, information was available for 93 dental schools. Of these 93 schools, only 10 listed departments/divisions/disciplines of cariology, whereas 83 and 86 schools had listed periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. Despite a doubling of the number of dental schools with a department/division/discipline of cariology from 2008 to 2021, the absolute gap in the number of departments/divisions/disciplines in the other two disciplines compared to cariology had widened during the thirteen years. In 2008, there were 70 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology compared to cariology departments/divisions/disciplines. In 2021, there were 73 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology. Additional information on research output was available for 90 dental schools in 2021, where 30 schools self-identified as undertaking cariology research, whereas 68 and 47 schools undertook research in periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental education does not give equal emphasis to periodontology and cariology, and the discipline of cariology is grossly neglected.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the perceptions of dental graduates' educational environment as well as preparedness to practice, and how these two components are correlated.
METHODS: A self-administered, validated questionnaire, developed from previous studies, was distributed to dental graduates of a public Malaysian university (n = 178, response rate = 60%) via online and postal surveys. Bivariate analyses were carried out using Spearman's rank-order correlation (Spearman's Rho, significance level p
METHODS: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were distributed to near-peer tutors after their clinical skills teaching sessions with Phase I undergraduate medical students. The Peer Tutor Assessment Instrument questionnaires were distributed to the 1) students, and to the 2) near-peer tutors (junior and senior) after each teaching and learning session for self-evaluation.
RESULTS: The senior near-peer tutors felt that their participation in the programme had enhanced their skills (p=0.03). As a whole, the near-peer tutors were more motivated (Pre 5.32±0.46; Post 5.47±0.50; p=0.210) to participate in future teaching sessions but did not expect that having teaching experiences would make teaching as their major career path in the future (Pre 4.63±1.07; Post 4.54±0.98; p=0.701). The senior near-peer tutors were evaluated significantly higher by the students (p=0.0001). Students' evaluations of near-peer tutors on the domain of critical analysis was higher than self-evaluations (p=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the near-peer tutors perceived that they have benefited most in their skills enhancement and these near-peer tutors were scored highly by the students. However, senior near-peer tutors do not perceive that the programme has a lasting impact on their choice of career path.